German tank optics seem lacking. Just a gripe

[risc]

> The example of the "max range" kill of a

> target at 14 km (8.7 miles!) by a Flak 88

> is interesting, but who again (or who

> else) has confirmed this?

I red this in the following book also:

Panzer Commander : The Memoirs of Colonel Hans Von Luck

by Hans Von Luck

ISBN: 0440208025

This book is really great, there are some really funny stories on fighting in North Africa and some excellent stories when Hans Von luck was POW in Russia.

One of the funny things was when fighting had to be stopped few times because British had a tea time around 1 - 2 pm British stopped fighting, so Gemrmans had a smoke break, that's what I call a knight fight

88 FLAK just kept shooting at one supply truck just for fun and they scored a hit I believe after 14 shots, or something like that I can post the exact text if anyone is interested...

One of the best books I ever red.

Peter

[This message has been edited by risc (edited 10-02-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Spook wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Also, while the article asserts the comparable superiority of the Zeiss optics, what is missing is a statisical assessment or tabulation as to HOW much better the Zeiss sight was at extended ranges, or even how much better at shorter ranges.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. Most guys interested in armor are biased towards German "superiority". We challenge that bias and ask for statistical or overwhelming anecdotal evidence. In turn the pro-German biased side of the argument just comes back with the same old tired argument "but the optics were better, darn it all!" But what is this based on? And what about the counter claim that the Western Allied optics were actually better at shorter ranges?

Sorry, but we did not make Combat Mission based on assumptions made by other wargames. And as far as Panzer Elite goes... PE "rolls" for penetration hits using D6

"dice rolls", so anything directly tied to that game, and not historically documented, is instantly dismissed lacking any other information.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The article recognizes that the Zeiss sight still required the gunner to consider several "offset" factors on a manual basis, thus it ultimate boils down to how well trained the gunner is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly our point. People love to overlook such important factors as crew skill, luck, and circumstances when they come up with anecdotal historical examples. I have one example here of M-10s taking out Panthers at 3000m. Maybe I can conclude from this that the M-10s optics were better, or perhaps that the M-10 was a superior vehicle, or that at the very least its gun was better. Of course, none of this is correct (obviously), but when some people read about a Panther taking out an M-10 at 3000m... why, it is the superior optics of course

I say again, the main reason the Germans have a better time against US/UK tanks at greater distances is because the guns were sooooo much better, the average Allied gun being sooooo much poorer, and the Allied armor sooooo much weaker. And at least in some cases, the training and skill of the German crews far above average.

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

[risc]

> One of the funny things was when fighting

> had to be stopped few times because

> British had a tea time around 1 - 2 pm no

> british stopped fighting, so Gemrmans had

> a smoke break, that's what I call a knight

> fight

For some reason I can't seems to fix/edit my post so this is really the correct text:

"One of the funny things was when fighting had to be stopped few times because British had a tea time around 1 - 2 pm British stopped fighting, so Gemrmans had a smoke break, that's what I call a knight fight "

Peter

[Jeff Heidman]

Steve,

In general, I agree with what you are saying as far as process is concerned. But I think you are making some rather flawed conclusions. This will come across as pretty harsh. It is not meant to be, but I do think you have amde several rather major logical errors.

Not everything is quantifiable. Some things, while completely true, do not lend themselves to easy quantification.

Your objection to giving German optics a bonus or adjustment sound like a Ford exec refusing to change the ergonomics of some sedan in 1985 because his researchers could not quantify what was better about the Honda Civics ergonomics. Of course, the result was that people bought a lot more Civics. But you still could not quanitfy what exactly was better about those ergonomics, other than through users giving their feelings and impressions.

I understand BTS reluctance to accept these assertions at face value, but your objection seems a little shallow. You refuse (or are unable to) refute the point that the optics were better, and just demand that someone quantify them. Well, that is a false demand, since obviously it is not possible to objectively quantify something that is designed to make something easier to use. What would you accept as "proof" or evidence? Something like gunnery accuracy is not nicely quantified like armor penetration or vehicle speed, or armor protection.

I think your dismissal of an article based on PE is rather unfair. If PE uses an unrealistic way to figure kill odds, that says nothing about their treatment of optics. You cannot dismiss the one on the basis of the other, especially since PE is a first person simulation. I would expect their system for simulating the optics of a gun to be superior to their system for determing results of gun hits.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Most guys interested in armor are biased towards German "superiority". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is just plain unfair and a fine example of poisoning the well. The impression I get from a statement like that is that you are a-priori dismissing any counter arguments by painting those who might disagree with a rather wide brush. I do not think that is remotely the case.

You demand objective evidence, but when it is provided, you dismiss it out of hand as not objective enough. You demand overwhelming anecdotal evidence, but dismiss any given anecdote as not illustrative.

I am sorry if this is coming across as personal or overly harsh. It is mot meant to be personal, but I do think the logic you are displaying is rather significantly flawed. I am not an expert on optics by any means, but from what I have seen of the debate, BTS has provided me with no reason to believe that their model is correct, while others have provided evidence that the Germans did actually have superior optics. That evidence has taken the form of both anecdotal evidence, AND an actual description of the systems in question, to a high level of detail. How could I conclude that BTS has the correct answer?

Jeff Heidman

[CavScout]

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

That is just plain unfair and a fine example of poisoning the well. The impression I get from a statement like that is that you are a-priori dismissing any counter arguments by painting those who might disagree with a rather wide brush. I do not think that is remotely the case. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You may not like what he said but it is true. The bias is there and it is real.

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

You demand objective evidence, but when it is provided, you dismiss it out of hand as not objective enough. You demand overwhelming anecdotal evidence, but dismiss any given anecdote as not illustrative.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What "objective" evidence? I saw something from another game maker...

As for "anecdotal" evidence one can provide, as Steve did, examples of Americans out-gunning the Germans. Why do you not draw the same conclusions as you do when looking at the German "anecdotal" evidence?

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

I am sorry if this is coming across as personal or overly harsh. It is mot meant to be personal, but I do think the logic you are displaying is rather significantly flawed. I am not an expert on optics by any means, but from what I have seen of the debate, BTS has provided me with no reason to believe that their model is correct, while others have provided evidence that the Germans did actually have superior optics. That evidence has taken the form of both anecdotal evidence, AND an actual description of the systems in question, to a high level of detail. How could I conclude that BTS has the correct answer?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This same thinking is what got the Germans in hot water in Russia. They also beleived they were superior in tank design... look what it got 'em.

Cav

[PzKpfw 1]

I'm still waiting on some optic info & I have not seen my past posts which detailed the magnification & sight picture quality diferences between unfiltered Allied & German optics quite clearly, refuted to date, nor do I believe this is a 'German' crowd thing, every book we have published on tank & tank warfare to date states the German optics were of much better quality then Allied optical devices even down to officer bino's etc.

I'm also going to add concerning 'quantification' that BTS apperently quantified the stabilizer used in US tanks even though their is no hard evidence to its, capabilities, or even a consensus on its actual use, as according to most sources it was never even used, & the fact it wasn't even installed in later Shermans.

Other then the same type of statements in contention here made in various works, concerning the German sights being better. Concerning the stabilizer we get:

*"The Sherman also had a gun stabilizer, which helped keep the gun on target while the tank was on the move, another edge in combat."

Their is certinly more refrence material concerning German optical superiority compared to any concerning the stabilizer, including official reported from the 1947 French tests on the Panther, which passages I have posted to this forum.

Now we also have no hard evidence Soviet optics were inferior to German, yet it is accepted without question that German optics were better, Steve made a refrence to this in one of the posts concerning this issue, that they would take a look at German optics for CM2 because basicly of the Soviets poor optics.

See: Halberstadt Hans, Military Vehicles p.52

Regards, John Waters

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

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

[risc]

I agree with Jeff Heidman completely, I'm a bit disappointed with Steve's answer I must say. I would say (personal opinion) it was both better guns and better optics adding crew skill and experience. I believe by not giving the Germans better optics factor into the equation is not a good idea/plain wrong.

(No I'm not WW2 German freak)

Example: Formula 1 racing.

You have great drivers in class of their own(Mika Hakkinen, Michael Schumacher) then you have good drivers (Ralf Schumacher, Barrichello , Fisichella, Frentzen, Coulthard

[some more]) and then the rest. Michael and Mika have the best cars but it takes a great car, great driver and team work to win races.

Saying that tires or car handling isn't part of the equation is just plain wrong. if you give average driver or not proven driver a good car (example Mika Salo) they can do wonders with the car (last year Mika drove well for Ferrari) but he needs team support and more experience to win constantly like Mika H. and Michael do, but put Mika Salo into say into Prost, BAR, Benetton or Jordan and his performance will shift down. Take Damond Hill for example a good driver drove pretty well for Williams the day he went to Arrows his career was over, you don't believe me watch the races for yourself...

End of story from my part, I don't think I have more to say on the subject...

From my point of view german optics should be part of the equation, my personal opinion only.

Peter

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You may not like what he said but it is true. The bias is there and it is real.[/quote}

No, what he said was:

Most guys interested in armor are biased towards German "superiority".

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is not true. Unless you or Steve has some objective way to prove that the majority of people interested in armor have this bias?

Of course, even if the bias did exist, it is still poisoning the well. It is logically fallacious to dismiss an argument based on a perceived attribute.

Lets say that whoever posted the excellent article on Zeiss optics is horribly biased towards the Germans. Does that make his argument wrong? Of course not. The validity of ANY argument stands on the merits of the argument, not the intentions of the person making the argument.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What "objective" evidence? I saw something from another game maker...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for illustrating my point to perfection. What difference does it make what the source is? Either the arguemnt is sound, or it is not. reading the article and deciding it is wrong because of the source is not just ignorant, it is stupid.

If you think the article in question was flawed, tell us why. Do not just dismiss it as irrelevant because of the source.

If there is bias being displayed here, it is from those who are unwilling to even adress an issue simply because they do not like the conclusions it might lead them to. Please, tell us specifically what the problem is with the PE article explaining the Zeiss optics.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As for "anecdotal" evidence one can provide, as Steve did, examples of Americans out-gunning the Germans. Why do you not draw the same conclusions as you do when looking at the German "anecdotal" evidence?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not drawing any conclusions at all. Steve said they wanted overwhelming anecdotal evidence. he was provided with anecdotal evidence, and he dismissed it out of hand.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This same thinking is what got the Germans in hot water in Russia. They also beleived they were superior in tank design... look what it got 'em.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yet another logical fallacy, this time the fallacy of equivocation, not to mention the fact that you are jsut plain wrong. The Germans were well aware of the inferiority of their tank designs in the summer of 1941. They did not think it mattered. Nice try though. The mistakes they amde in analysis had nothing to do with tank design.

Jeff Heidman

[Spook]

Well, this may have well been done by others earlier on, but I think I'll drop an e-mail to someone in Aberdeen and ask if a "literature search" can be done to check for archived technical reports on WW2-era gun optics.

[Jeff Heidman]

Great points John. The gyro is an outstanding counter example. Wish I would have thought of that myself.

So, tell me CavScout, what is the quantifiable, objective evidence of the effect of the rarely seen and used gyrostabilizer on combat in the time frame represented? Or are you of the opinion that it should be removed, since there is even less evidence for its effect than there is for German optics?

Jeff Heidman

[PzKpfw 1]

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

Well, this may have well been done by others earlier on, but I think I'll drop an e-mail to someone in Aberdeen and ask if a "literature search" can be done to check for archived technical reports on WW2-era gun optics.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't waste your time Spook, less you realy want to . I spoke to Aberdeen last week on the phone, I was imformed all their material was moved to the National archivesd in Washington.

& the only surefire way to get access to the records is to go to Washington in person & dig thru it, I was imformed not to bother trying E-mail or phone as they tend to just blow you off, which is harder to accomplish if your standing their .

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 10-02-2000).]

[Spook]

OK, folks, we MIGHT be starting to get our panties in a knot here......

As far as the Panzer Elite reference article on Zeiss optics goes, let's stop bickering over whether or not that article is valid in its assertions. It would be better instead for someone else just to contact the article writer and ask WHERE he got his information. Heck, he MIGHT even have some of that elusive statistical "accuracy" data that we are in need of here.

So while I check on Aberdeen later, why don't one of you go after the PE developer?

[Spook]

Oops. Just missed your post there, John. Thanks for the heads-up. But I might give it a whirl anyway, at least to see if report numbers & titles can be accessed later for the National Archives.

[CavScout]

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

From my point of view german optics should be part of the equation, my personal opinion only.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then one would need to show what, if any, advantage German optics had in the Normandy campaign. Then one needs to demostrate the "advantage" they give to the Germans.

I suspect many of these pro-"increase German advantage" have simply had poor luck or have employed their German assests ineffectivly.

I always find it odd that the pro-German armor want every advantage, seen or infered, given to German armor but at the same time would be against a realistic use of Allied material advantage and the poor German one.

Cav

[Guest rune]

For your enjoyment...German optical sights. Thanks to http://www.kithobbyist.com/AFVInteriors/

for the information.

German sights and other optical devices were some of the clearest and most precise used by any country in WWII, and the primary manufacturer (Leitz) was justifiably proud of their products. Regardless of whether you were looking through a TZF9c in a late Tiger 1 tank, or a SflZF5 in a Jagdpanther, German anti-armor sights mounted on tanks and tank destroyers had a similar sight picture and the etchings on the glass (reticle) were arranged in a similar and familiar pattern. Most of these sights were known as Zielfernrohr types (Sfl.ZF), used 3x magnification and generally had a field of view of around 8 degrees. Around the perimeter of the reticle were range markings for the primary ammunition that had been designated for use with that gun. These sights usually included the coaxial machine gun (MG34) range scale on one side (which would not be on our Jagdpanther' sight) and the major anti-tank projectile scales on the other. Most of these reticles were illuminated, and a translucent pointer at the top of the sight picture remained stationary while the gunner turned a knob on the sight body to rotate the correct range marking around until it was under the pointer. That motion would elevate or depress the sight slightly in relation to the gun, and when the gun tube was then realigned would compensate for the aerodynamics of the particular projectile the gunner had chosen and the range to the target. That was the easy part of gun laying, the difficult part was accurately ranging the target and adding in a lead angle, if the target was moving.

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

Picture 8:

In the center of the sight picture is a horizontal line of evenly spaced triangles, only the larger center one has a base while the three others on each side are open at the bottom. The top of the center triangle is the aiming point, and for a stationary target that had been ranged properly for the ammo type that was to be fired, the gunner merely turned the traverse and elevation hand wheels in order to align the tip of the center triangle onto the target, and then fired the gun. The top of each triangle was the same distance from the next, and this distance was divided into "strich" (mil), there being four strich between each triangle tip. For those that are interested, the total 360 degrees of rotation available for a tank turret/gun can be divided into 6400 equal parts, and each of these angles is one mil, or one strich. Likewise, one strich equals approximately 0.06 degrees.

If the gunner knew the approximate width or height of his target, such as a T-34 tank, he could then calculate the distance to his target by noting how many strich wide the tank appeared in his sight and then using a simple mathematical formula to figure the range. The hull of a T-34 was around 3 meters wide when viewed from the front. If the hull occupied one strich in the gunner's sight (one quarter the distance between the tips of two adjoining triangles- this T-34 is pretty far away!) then the gunner could figure that the T-34 was around 3000 meters distance. Actually, a number of these distances and the size of enemy vehicles were memorized back at gunnery school. If the T-34 appeared three strich wide in his sight (took up 3/4 of the distance between triangle tips), he knew the enemy tank was only 1000 meters distance. Once this range had been calculated, the gunner could then rotate the proper range on the range scale to the top of his sight (under the pointer), align the gun with his hand wheels so the target was at the tip of the middle triangle, and electrically fire the weapon by the extension on the elevation wheel.

The ranging formula was simple: take the known width of the target, divide it by the number of strich it takes up in the sight picture, and multiply times 1000. For instance- a T-34 (3 meters wide), at 6 strich, times 1000, would equal 500 meters range (3 / 6 x 1000 = 500). In the Jagdpanther, the gunner would then turn the range dial so the 500 meters mark on the 8.8cm Pz Gr 39/43 range scale lined up with the top pointer, align the gun so the target was on the tip of the center triangle, and then fire the weapon. The sight reticle picture I have included here is for a Tiger 1 TZF9b sight, taken from an original German Tigerfibel manual. But as I said, the general arrangement of the etchings are the same for our Jagdpanther except there would be four range scales for specific AP and HE shells. These would include Pz Gr 39/43, Spgr 43, Gr 39 HL, and Pz Gr 40/3 and would have no MG34 range scale (no coax MG on the JpV).

As you may know, early Tiger 1 and Panther tanks used a binocular sight, with the right lens reticle appearing like this and the left simply marked with a horizontal ranging scale. These two images would be superimposed over each other when looking into the sight with both eyes, unless you had a strongly dominate eye, and then you were out of luck. The Germans realized the double ranging scales were unnecessary and difficult for some gunners to use, so most binocular sights were replaced by monocular ones, leaving just this type of sight picture. Properly leading a moving target was another can of worms that we will not get into here, but it also required some additional math and was based on the estimated speed and direction of the target vehicle, as well as the range and ammo type being used. Suffice it to say, hitting anything on a broken WWII battle field was a precise combination of simple math, practice, skill, nerve, and luck, especially when the enemy was targeting you at the same time and perhaps even hitting your Jagdpanther from a number of different directions. German orders were clear that there could be no firing on the move in WWII, the vehicle had to stop and shoot, then move on to another position if necessary. Stabilized sights would not reach German tankers in any quantity by the end of the war, which some claim put them at a disadvantage compared to the Sherman. But stabilized sights came with their own problems.

[PzKpfw 1]

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

OK, folks, we MIGHT be starting to get our panties in a knot here......

As far as the Panzer Elite reference article on Zeiss optics goes, let's stop bickering over whether or not that article is valid in its assertions. It would be better instead for someone else just to contact the article writer and ask WHERE he got his information. Heck, he MIGHT even have some of that elusive statistical "accuracy" data that we are in need of here.

So while I check on Aberdeen later, why don't one of you go after the PE developer?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The person to contact on the article would be Michael McConnell also known as "Sabot" OL he has posted here before IIRC. I'll contact Teut L8r today & see what they dug up when we did PE.

Regards, John Waters

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

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

[Guest Big Time Software]

OK, some counter points...

I have been studying WWII for almost 15 years and wargaming even longer. ANYBODY that argues there is no pro-German bias is rather blind. It is so rampant and pervasive that to see this even questioned is rather concerning.

Jeff, do search and find how many books there are on Whitmann and how many on Abrams. Look for the number of specialty book shops that have nothing but German books. Or even better, look at the book list of Schiffer's works to see how many are German and how many are US. The intense interest, and almost worshipping, of all things German is astonishingly plain to see. You can also check out how many deep discussions have been made, and even heated up, over us not giving the Germans "fair treatment". I cite at least 3 arguments in favor of making the MG42 more effective, the tank optics more effective, the 88 thread, a couple on SS troops, etc. etc.

I also ask the people here that have participated in detailed level discussions... how much do they know about the Allied side of the coin? Most have a library full of books on German weapons and armaments, but scant few sources about US or (gasp) British equipment. And the quality of the source material for the German stuff is largely superior if for no other reason than sheer volume of documentation.

Bottom line is that there is a STRONG and longstanding culture surrounding the German military and their "superiority". This predates WWII as a matter of fact, and even the Germans bought into when they waged war with pretty much everybody on Earth. Unfortunately, this mass movement in favor of German stuff continues today.

More on the rest next...

Steve

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This is not true. Unless you or Steve has some objective way to prove that the majority of people interested in armor have this bias?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How about you "objectivly" prove that I am wrong. This is the tact you seem bent on using.

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

Of course, even if the bias did exist, it is still poisoning the well. It is logically fallacious to dismiss an argument based on a perceived attribute.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hardly. When one's stace is soley based on "feeling" that German armor should be better it should be.

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

Lets say that whoever posted the excellent article on Zeiss optics is horribly biased towards the Germans. Does that make his argument wrong? Of course not. The validity of ANY argument stands on the merits of the argument, not the intentions of the person making the argument.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And IF you read that "article" is a "how to use" article and not much else. The author says the German sights are better but offers no proof or referances to back this up. He offers an OPINION which you seem to take as gospel.

I dimiss it because it lacks substance and question it and those who use it because of the "intentions" of the author.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Thanks for illustrating my point to perfection. What difference does it make what the source is? Either the arguemnt is sound, or it is not. reading the article and deciding it is wrong because of the source is not just ignorant, it is stupid.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Source is always important. I wouldn't turn to Nazi research for un-biased information of German superiority.

Besides, reading an article and deciding it is right is even more ignorant and stupid especially when it provides no relevant facts or sources. Citing another author's opinion, with no sources, is rather obtuse.

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

If you think the article in question was flawed, tell us why. Do not just dismiss it as irrelevant because of the source.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because it is simply an opinion piece.

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

If there is bias being displayed here, it is from those who are unwilling to even adress an issue simply because they do not like the conclusions it might lead them to. Please, tell us specifically what the problem is with the PE article explaining the Zeiss optics.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lack of evidence would be one small problem.

Cav

[CavScout]

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

Yet another logical fallacy, this time the fallacy of equivocation, not to mention the fact that you are jsut plain wrong.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hardly.

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

The Germans were well aware of the inferiority of their tank designs in the summer of 1941. They did not think it mattered. Nice try though. The mistakes they amde in analysis had nothing to do with tank design.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So they weren't surprised by the T-34, eh?

Cav

[CavScout]

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

Great points John. The gyro is an outstanding counter example. Wish I would have thought of that myself.

So, tell me CavScout, what is the quantifiable, objective evidence of the effect of the rarely seen and used gyrostabilizer on combat in the time frame represented? Or are you of the opinion that it should be removed, since there is even less evidence for its effect than there is for German optics?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What effect did it have in the European theater? What effect is it giving in CM? If it isn't modeled correctly then change it.

Cav

[Guest Big Time Software]

Jeff,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Not everything is quantifiable. Some things, while completely true, do not lend themselves to easy quantification.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct. But how does one go about quantifying something that isn't quantifiable? Putting on our hat for a second Jeff... what would you do in our shoes? Simply give the Germans some sort of arbitrary bonus? What would that quantifiable bonus be valued at and applied to? On what basis would you justify these numbers?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I understand BTS reluctance to accept these assertions at face value, but your objection seems a little shallow.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I think your support for some sort of bonus is rather shallow. If we put in a bonus for German long range optics, would you advocate us putting in a penalty for short range targeting? I'd say the evidence would support this, so you would be in favor of both, or just the one that gives the Germans an advantage?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You refuse (or are unable to) refute the point that the optics were better, and just demand that someone quantify them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is not up to me to refute the findings. I actually agree that the German optics are most likely better for long range targeting. But do they have a quantifiable effect on combat? I am not sure that they do. In fact, I am more sure that they could have had a real world NEGATIVE impact on short range fighting vs. a Western Allied vehicle. But yet I am not proposing that we penalize the Germans either.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What would you accept as "proof" or evidence?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know Jeff, but what do YOU need to accept someone else's position? For a long time it was common knowledge that the Earth was flat and people with black skin were genetically (although the word didn't exist at the time) inferior to those with white skin. Neither backed up by quantifiable evidence, but loudly touted by their supporters. So should we just bow to shouting and anecdotal evidence, or should we look at the issue more critically?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think your dismissal of an article based on PE is rather unfair.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it is competely fair. We do not use other people's games as source material in any circumstances. Games do not make good reference materials, even one as painstakingly researched and simulated as Combat Mission.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If PE uses an unrealistic way to figure kill odds, that says nothing about their treatment of optics. You cannot dismiss the one on the basis of the other, especially since PE is a first person simulation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know what the last bit has to do with anything (PE is a TANK simulator, not a wargame), but I most certainly can discount things that PE possibly does right because of what it is known to do wrong. This is Reasearch 101. If a source has known flaws you are obligated to look at the other unknown elements as suspect. Or do you do research some other way?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I would expect their system for simulating the optics of a gun to be superior to their system for determing results of gun hits.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A rather bold statement, but what basis do you have for making it? Because questioning their treatment of optics doesn't help your cause is the only reason I can see.

Steve

[Jeff Heidman]

CavScout, you are diggin yourself deaper with every post.

Suffice it to say that your rather interesting idea that the source of an argument is sufficient to dismiss the validity of an argument is used as a textbook example of logical fallacy. Take a class in logic some day, it would do youa world of good.

You claim the piece lacks substance. It has a freaking picture of the sight and explains how that picture makes it easier and more accurate. How much more substance do you want?

I notice you ahev still not addressed one single point raised in teh article and refuted it. Not one. I think it is because you cannot, so you are going to jsut wave the entire thing away.

What would it take to convince you that the German optics were superior? Literally, what specific evidence would cause you to say that there needs to be a change?

I do not think there is any conceivable evidence that would make you change your tune. Ratehr you will define some impossible to fulfill criteria.

Steve, the point is not whether bias exists, it is whether it is fair to dismiss an arguemnt because you think the person amking the arguemnt is biased. The validity of an arguemnt stands on its merits, not on the motives of the person making the argument.

Ignoring the logical fallacies, it is jsut plain poor reasoning to approach any debate with the assumption that the person you are arguing against fulfills some pre-defined mold that will color everything they say.

Do you consider me to be incapable of forming an argument because I have done extensive reading on German AND Allied armor and come to the conclusion that the Americans were almsot criminally negligent in their decision to allow the Germans to grossly outclass them in armor?

I have no "fascination" with German weapons. I do think the German tanks were, overall, consistently superior to American tanks. I think you would agree. Does that make me a Germano-phile?

I also think that the M1 Abrams is a superior tank to the T-55. Does that make me incapable of forming a reasoned argument about Soviet (or American) armor?

Jeff Heidman

[Jarmo]

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

For your enjoyment...German optical sights.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, to me this really points out that the german optics were excellent.

Now, does someone have a similar description of allied optics? I don't.

I think it might make this a bit clearer.

As for the "german superiority complex", it's really hard to not have it,

the Panther WAS a better tank than Sherman. Right?

I still wouldn't consider myself too pro german, though.

[PzKpfw 1]

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

So they weren't surprised by the T-34, eh?

Cav<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, not in the sense its been portrayed in most books it certinly was a shock to German troops.

The German's were aware of the T-34's exsitance as in an *OKW internal document on Soviet military industrial capacity with an cut off date of March 1941 identified a new Soviet 32 ton tank the "T-32" (which was the T-34's original designation) was being produced in several Soviet tank factories.

*See: Zaloga Steven J, Technological Suprise and the Initial Period of War: The Case of the T-34 Tank in 1941 The Journal of Slavic Military Studies. Vol.6 No. 4 December 1993. pp. 634 - 646

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 10-02-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

As some of you have pointed out, we do have gyrostabalizers for US vehicles. This was a judgement call on our part, and it is open to question as to how valid it is. But its inclusion in no way shape or form justifies the INCLUSION of German optics bonuses. If anything, it is a case to remove the gyros.

The main argument against stabalizers in CM is not that they were effective, but to what degree crews used them. This is debatable. Certainly many crews disconnected them, but what is "many"? 99%, 10%, 50%, what? Unfortunately, the way CM is set up we only have the "all or nothing" option. So their use in CM is overstated. However, I take issue with anybody that suggests that they weren't effective when actually used...

As for being effective, here is a report from Hunnicut's most excellent work on the Sherman tank family:

"Battle experience showed that the stabilizer provided a definaite advangate when troops were properly trained in its use. Unfortunately, many units were not fully familiar with these advantages and disconnected their stabilizers...

...[iBM gyrostabliizer] was first tested at Aberdeen in December 1943. The results were unsatisfactory and after te equipment was modified, testing resumed in March 1944. Additional changes proved necessary and a new series of tests began in October with the equpment installed in an M4A3 armed with the 75mm gun. The IBM system was compared with an Ordanance design using standard Westinghouse components....

Both experimental systems wer compared with a standard M4A3 equipped with only the elevation stabilizer. Toeliminate any differences in skill, the gunners were rotated between all three vehicles. The test results indicated a definite advantage for tanks fitted with the azimuth stabilization...

...The KwK40 could, of course, also penetrate the Sherman, but the fast power traverse frequently allowed the US built tank to get in the first shot. With proper training, the use of the elevation gyrostabilizer also gave an advantage to the M4s..."

The stablizier program was over 3 years old in application by the time CM simulates. It is difficult to imagine why the US would have gone through SO much trouble to make this extra effort if all the crews did was disable it because it was ineffective.

As for "hard evidence" here is some that so far we have not see the likes of for the German optics argument:

"Thests in April 1941 showed that the power traverse and elevation stabilizer greatly improved the effectiveness of teh 37mm gun when the tank was in motion. With the tank moving at 10 mph over a zig-zag course, the crew rapidly engaged targets ranging from 200-700 yards in all different directions. Over 60% hits were repeatedly obtained using the T1 telescopic sight. As result of these tests and the sybsequent solution of the friction problem in the 75mm gun mount, the Ordanance Committee recommended the stadardization of stabilizers for both cannon in June 1941"

Also note... German tankers were instructed to NOT fire on the move, while Allied ones were trained to do just the opposite. One can easily conclude that the stabalizers explains this difference in training.

So I guess our basis for the stabilizers was pulled out of thin air like you suggest we do for the German optics? I think not. If we saw a similar test report about German tanks vs. Allied ones, that was obviously done under scientific conditions, this would be a much more interesting debate.

Steve