German tank optics seem lacking. Just a gripe

[Jeff Heidman]

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

You come up with a bonus, and then test to see if it reflects the results you think should occure. Repeat. How else can you possibly simulate anything that does not have quantifiable results?

How did you guys decide on the bonus for a gyrostabilized gun?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Well, I think your support for some sort of bonus is rather shallow. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really? I thought I had rather specific points for why I think it bears some thought.

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

If the evidence is equivalent, then of course you should put it in. Why would I argue any differently?

Oh, that's right, I must be one of those Germano-phile types. Sorry, but if there is a compelling reason to make some German unit less effective, I will be the first to support it. I apologize for not fitting into your handy stereotype.

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

Huh? They are better, but have no effect. Wouldn't that mean that they were not better?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I don't know Jeff, but what do YOU need to accept someone else's position?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Evidence, of course.

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

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?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow. Huge fallacy of equivocation. You are confusing lack of evidence period with lack of quantifiable evidence. Not the same thing at all. Try not to place those who disagree with you into personally objectionable boxes. No-one is "shouting" about anything. They are just bringing up what they see as valid points for why a change might be warranted.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think it is competely fair. We do not use other people's games as source material in any circumstances. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No one is asking you to use someone elses game as source amterial. You (BTS) asked for evidence that Zeis optics were superior. Someone provided you an article that happens to be written about another game. The data in the article appears to be factually correct. Do you find any given point objectionable? The article merely explains why Zeiss optics were superior. The intended audience is PE players. That makes ZERO difference to the validity of the argument. This is Logic 101 stuff.

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

The funny thing is, I did not even HAVE a cause just yesterday. I was not overly convinced one way or the other, but after seeing yet more people post evidence, and the deafening lack of substantive response from people like CavScout, I cannot help but conclude that the pro-bonus guys are winning this arguemnt hands down.

Whether it will mean anything certinaly remains to be seen however. I am guessing (at this point) that it will not.

Jeff Heidman

[Ari Maenpaa]

So we have two hard-to-quantify tank characteristics here: The gyrostabilizers used by the allies and the superior German long range optics.

The former made it into the game but the latter didn't.

Could you, Steve, be more specific on the factors that made it possible to model gyro-bonus? Maybe we all could learn something from that.

Ari

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

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ari Maenpaa:

So we have two hard-to-quantify tank characteristics here: The gyrostabilizers used by the allies and the superior German long range optics.

The former made it into the game but the latter didn't.

Could you, Steve, be more specific on the factors that made it possible to model gyro-bonus? Maybe we all could learn something from that.

Ari

[This message has been edited by Ari Maenpaa (edited 10-02-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He did. Unfortunately, apparently there was nothing very quantifiable in that report either, other than that it was certianly better to have one then not. Which is what we know about the Zeiss optics.

Nothing quantifiable in said report that shows exactly how much better it was to have a gyro vs. no gyro.

Jeff Heidman

[Guest Big Time Software]

Jeff,

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

True, but I wasn't directing this at you but rather the whole pro-German [fill in the feature] camp. There is a standing bias in favor of things of German manufacture. So when we see such an argument come forward, we put on our Sceptical Hat and really look at the issue. This is something you apparently do not want to see us do, because you are arguing hard against us looking at this issue critically. You hold up opinion as if it were fact and then decry our quest for better information before bowing to a prevailing pro-German attitude (even if you yourself do not fit that description). Sorry, that is just bad research and even worse logic.

Steve

[CavScout]

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

CavScout, you are diggin yourself deaper with every post.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It may be deeper in here but it is simply the BS you are shoveling.

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

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I said if the source is suspect so should any argument from it. It is very logical to consider the source.

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

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?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So using this mighty "logic" if I throw up a web page with a picture of an American sight and "explain" how it is better you'll believe it?

I've got a bridge to sell you...

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

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is an OPINION piece. There is nothing to "refute". It is the authors opinion. Your mistake is taking it to be fact.

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

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? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How about statistical evidence of Allied [west] tank engagements versus the Germans.

The question is not who had better sights but what advanatge to they gain.

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

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And this is different from you how?

Cav

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

[Guest Big Time Software]

Jeff wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>He did. Unfortunately, apparently there was nothing very quantifiable in that report either, other than that it was certianly better to have one then not. Which is what we know about the Zeiss optics.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

False. What evidence is there that the German system of optics is qunatifiably better than those in Allied tanks? Or what German tests are out there that show a Panther without the optics in question had a quntifiable decrease in engaging targets using sights equivalent to what Western Allied tanks had? In fact, what evidence has been put on the table? None. Little diagrams with detailed explanations of how it works is not evidence that it yields a noticiable advantage on the battlefield. The Aberdeen tests were conducted comparing a gun with the Stabilizer and one without. Therefore, there is a scientifically established advantage for the stablized gun. Where is there similar evidence in support of the German optics?

This is our point and it is one that you dismiss quite casually, if not rudely. I don't care if you are a pro-German equipment guy or not, this is just a bad position you are constructing.

Steve

[PzKpfw 1]

Steve as I said no hard data, not any that puts a 'quantifiable' combat value on stabilizers or any that makes it any easier to quantify a value for the stabilizer then German optic advantages.

German SOP was stop, fire, move, as it provided better accuracy then fireing on the move, in their experience, it does not in itsself quantify multiple 500m bunker slit 1st round hits driveing at 25mph.

We can dismiss the supporting anectdotal evidence etc, what we can not dismiss is the documented technichal diferences in the Allied & German optical devices. Ie, unfiltered single magnification 3x, 4x, 6x & the dual magnification M15 in the M26 with 1x & 7x magnification. Vs the filtered 2.5,5x 3x 6x & 10 X German sights.

I'd also add again look at the French report part of which can be found in Spielbergers Panther, it states the Panthers optics were excelent, able to see shell strikes & objects clearly at 3000ms. As well as the Panthers optimal engagement range was 1400 - 2000ms with every chance of sucess due to its optics.

I agreed with Fionn long ago that under 800ms the tanks should run about equal on % to hit etc, but over 800ms their defintly was an edge. Now if theirs an bias its one every armor author to date, has been guilty of even Hunnicutt as they all point out the superior long range capabilities of German tanks due to their optics.

I also want to add Steve I do see your point on actualy quantifing a % for German optics at LR & have no sugestions on that. I also hope you see mine concerning the stabilizer issue. As I said I am actively searching for data on this to the point of contacting various agency's to date no luck as I can't afford to fly to Washington to search Aberdeens records which are now stored 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).]

[Jarmo]

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

JCorrect. But how does one go about quantifying something that isn't quantifiable? Putting on our hat for asecond 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?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, if just about every book agrees the german optics were

better, but don't say just how much better, that leads us to the

area of "educated guess".

Let's face it, there's a whole lot of stuff here, that doesn't

come from test range. Like all the guns, for instance. I bet there's

no real data of how much more effective MP40 is than Lee Enfield,

from a distance of 75 meters, during a typical combat situation.

It's guesswork, based on some actual data, of course.

To me it seems, if it seems the optics give an advantage, then by all means

let the optics give an advantage. It's better to err a bit than ignore the

whole subject.

If there's evidence pointing that the german optics put the german

tankers at disadvantage at close ranges, then make it so.

Just the same with gyros, maybe the advantage isn't big enough,

maybe it's too big. Who's to say? But it's definitely better to

have them included than not.

Oh, I'm quite happy with my copy of CM, thank you.

I'd just wan't to be even happier.

[JWorthing]

the source for an argument is always important because bias does exist (even when it is not intentional).

On another note, I don't think taking a class on anything makes you an expert (or even learned).

Also, for what its worth, there is a "feel" of german bias (not just on the board but in documentaries and books).

just my opinions

[Guest Big Time Software]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Huh? They are better, but have no effect. Wouldn't that mean that they were not better?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jeff, this is clearly showing that you are arguing for argument's sake. I think the German optics might be better at long ranges does not automatically translate into some sort of bonus. They could just be better on the eyes for all anybody knows. And since they were complicated to use, think about this example...

We add a -2 second target aquisition bonus for German tanks with targets over 1000m away

We add a +2 second penalty for the greater time needed for aquiring the firing data.

End result... cancels out. This is just ONE possible conclusion we could come up with, and WHO are you to argue against it? There is no evidence to either support or refute these numbers, so they are as good as any in the absence of evidence.

This is what a game designer has to look at. A gamer has the luxury of being able to complain without either sound logic or practical application of their arguments. In this sort of debate, the advantage is always firmly in favor of the complainer.

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

John,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now if theirs an bias its one every author to date has been guilty of even Hunnicutt as they all point out the superior long range capabilities of German tanks due to their optics. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not correct. Every source says the German tanks were superior at long range. That is not in dispute and is in fact simulated in CM. The sources do not say that this range is because of their optics, and if one does it isn't backed up and is instead stated as if it is established fact. Well, what we are questioning is how established this is and, more importantly, how to quantify this "fact" in simulation terms.

You are a self proclaimed man of knowledge about German guns, correct? Explain to me how it is that you can attribute the greater striking power at increased ranges, compared to a US/UK tank, based on the optics alone? You can not. If you compare the guns, you can see that ballistically speaking the German guns are simply put more accurate at longer ranges, correct? So how much more accurate does the German optics make them? 1%? 10%? 200%? You might say "guess and then adjust to what feels right" and I say "it feels right to me now" and then you say "you are wrong", then we are back at square one.

Steve

[PzKpfw 1]

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

John,

Not correct. Every source says the German tanks were superior at long range. That is not in dispute and is in fact simulated in CM. The sources do not say that this range is because of their optics, and if one does it isn't backed up and is instead stated as if it is established fact. Well, what we are questioning is how established this is and, more importantly, how to quantify this "fact" in simulation terms.

You are a self proclaimed man of knowledge about German guns, correct? Explain to me how it is that you can attribute the greater striking power at increased ranges, compared to a US/UK tank, based on the optics alone? You can not. If you compare the guns, you can see that ballistically speaking the German guns are simply put more accurate at longer ranges, correct? So how much more accurate does the German optics make them? 1%? 10%? 200%? You might say "guess and then adjust to what feels right" and I say "it feels right to me now" and then you say "you are wrong", then we are back at square one.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve re read what I posted you replied while i was editing it. as it answers your % remarks. Now please explain if German guns have an LR pk inherent in CM over the Allied tanks, and if thats the case why are we even discussing optics at all?.

I'm confused here Steve, are you saying optics play no part in LR gunnery? and any book that states such is incorrect as its stateing it as fact?, I just want to clarify this point, as logicly if you cant see over 1000ms your not going to hit anything at 1400ms regardless of greater striking power etc.

Now what about my other points I still have not seen any refuted oir even adressed.

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).]

[Jarmo]

Ouh, I lost it somewhere.

So are the german tank guns already more accurate?

I thought all accuracy, as it is, comes directly from the

muzzle velocity of the gun.

[ASL Veteran]

I would like to jump in here as a neutral observer. Basically, BTS doesn’t want to add a German advantage for better optics unless the advantage of the optics can be quantified. There really is only one way the advantage can be quantified. The way would be to take a couple of German tanks (or American) and have them all do a test fire at a range with their standard sights. You would then replace all the sights with American (or German) sights and do another test fire at a range. Of course you would have to alternate gunners between tanks and also factor out the contribution to accuracy that the ballistics of each individual gun has. This would give you quantifiable evidence as to how effective the German optics were relative to American optics. You can’t compare the accuracy of a Tiger tank at various ranges to a Sherman at various ranges because you cannot isolate the optics from the various other things that contribute to accuracy.

Problem here is that it is unlikely any test of that nature was ever done – therefore we never will have any quantifiable evidence as to how superior German optics were (if indeed they were). Even making the assumption that the various foreign sights could be fitted to the test vehicle, why would such a test be conducted anyway? You see, the problem is in the nature of the object being tested. You can’t see the ballistic qualities of a gun with your eyeball and decide its effect on accuracy – that can best be done mathematically. You can look through a sight though and determine if it is ‘better’ or not. For example, let’s say I am trying to determine the effect to accuracy that a telescopic sight has on a rifle. Let’s say one guy has a Lee Enfield with a 4x scope and another fellow has a Mauser with iron sights. Both fire a succession of shots at a target 500m away and compare notes. In this example, assuming the fellow with the Lee Enfield hit more often than the Mauser, one would be able to argue that “I don’t believe that the 4x scope had any effect on accuracy since the Enfield may have hit more often due to the better ballistic qualities of the rifle itself.” The guy with the Enfield may be jumping up and down saying that he can see the target better, but his assertion is inherently unquantifiable. At the same time, the fellow using the 4x scope would not need to fit the scope to the Mauser and fire that and compare notes with the scopeless Enfield because he knows that he can see better with the scope fitted. If he knows he can see better, why bother testing it? The moment the gunner looks through the scope he knows it is better – no mathematical formula is needed to judge that.

[STRAKER]

Yes ive found German tanks are more accurate over long distances. Short range can be nasty as well to most allied tanks, the turrent's rotation being slow is the bad thing about close up fighting.

Regarding all the previous discussion i dont have a problem at present with any sides tanks/gunnery. The bad luck one can have is insane sometimes but it happens.

I have been into WWII fro 17 years and i believe the ballistics etc are done very well. I feel there is a slight pro german taint in the air regarding tanks and i would like to add that they were not that amazing.

They were good though, as i have tested making testing ranges with all the tanks.

Using both ai and human they all work well according to certain ranges and calibres. Specifics like terrain, tactics and the like come into it more so than the weapons themselves i believe.!!!!!!!

As u dont see Allied tanks sitting there shooting germans long distance as they moved up and engaged at close range using there speed to outflank and turrent rotation speed to boot.

I appreciate improvement in games but i feel whats done so far (tank wise) is good enough.

(just my opinion but)

Sometimes i think the AI is cheating hehehe with the luck factor that i find occuring alot; this game keeps me laughing all the time.

This game is one of the few where luck kicks in alot at the worst possible moment.

This to me is the start of thigns to come, Good luck BTS making Russian tanks etc.

[PzKpfw 1]

Good points ASL agree with you, & I can't agree that you can seperate the FCS from the gun as it all contributes to the accuracy, If I can see you at 1100ms but you cant see me, I have an advantage, how much so is debateable.

Much of what is modeled in wargames is not realy quantifiable, but based on refrence material & anecdotal evidence conclusions and the designers feeling of what is right.

Either way I'm pretty sure the US Army & British did do reports on German optics, the problem is getting it, since Zeiss is slow in responding & I'll basicly have to go to Washington to obtain any of the Aberdeens records, its gonna be a while before that happens do to RL.

IMHO the stabiliser & optics fall in the same catagory as unquantifiable, and as I said earlier, I have no ideas on how you would even model an optical advantage, in CM I know how it was done in other wargames, but CM is not othe wargames.

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).]

[Slapdragon]

At the risk of making the anti-science crowd on this forum mad, I think it is also important to point out the difference between historical truth, scientific truth, and logic.

Logic is when you make a chain of assumptions that hold together through subjective reality. For example: The heavier an object is, the faster it will fall. If I tell you a pea and a bowling ball fall at the same speed, you can argue logically that they do not.

Historical truth is subjective truth based upon recounting of events and physical evidence. This is more useful than logical truth because it has some evidence from real world events to back it up, and if very useful for defining the events that occurred in a situation, but is not useful for many things. Two people can claim to have seen a pea falling slower than a bowling ball and we would just shrug. For example, Captain Thomas Evans in his oral history told that using the Gyros on the M18 Hellcat he was able to destroy a Panther while moving at 35 miles per hour at 1100 meters. Another oral history called "Men of the 704" recounts the same event from the eyes of two other men who saw it.

It is important to understand what this tells us. It does not tell us that all Hellcats used Gyros (although other references in this and other histories would lead us to believe they were commonly used). It does not tell us what his chance of hitting a Panther at 1100 meters is, or how much of his hit was luck, how much was skill, and how much was the gyros. It only tells us that one Hellcat hit one Panther moving very fast at a good distance and put it out of action. All of the extant presentational data discussed in this thread so far fall into this category except for a short presentation of data.

Next, we have the hated and reviled science that created both the optics under discussion, and the machines upon which this discussion run. There are two types of science: bad and good.

Bad science is science used to prove a point that has lurking or problematic issues with it. If I was in the weight effects speed of descent camp, I could take a feather out, and take a bowling ball, and drop them from a tower. When the bowling ball hit first I would shake my own had and run off to the chat room to report my results. Of course, since my variables were not controlled or at least randomized I was the victim of a lurking variable: wind resistance, and my test tells us nothing. Worse, because I used logic rather than a construct of knowledge to fashion my test I am left with nothing to go back to in my study to retest my thoughts. In addition, 50 years from now, someone may dig up my old data and start off on a new crusade.

Finally, there is good science. This uses quantification to build a model of how the world works, then tests the model against reality, then presents all that to the world for critique and retesting. It also uses a healthy scepticism of any data that does not follow these rules.

For optics, you need to find out what, if any, superior optics had on gunfire. We cannot use sniper scores to test this, since the highest scoring snipers used iron sights. We could create a theory that German optics were better because US officers often retained German binoculars, but unless we find out that thier unit was able to fire twice as fast or the officer was twice as accurate firing artillery then we are in for a tough route.

So, when we do have to back down to historical proof, like with the gyros, it is comforting that historical evidence made hits while moving with the gyro "possible" while moving targeting was "nearly impossible" (Evans). For the optics, no single measure of parallax or acuity will generate that sort of comment.

It is important to remember the number of other things that had to be abstracted in this same way. US tanks were more comfortable and gave a better ride, but there is no comfort bonus to fighting an American tank. US infantry has a far superior diet to German, and as a result had a "considerably better" night vision as tested against POWs, but there is no nutrition bonus for Allied soldiers. American radio nets allowed tanks and platoon level officers to direct artillery fire in the US Army, but this was ommitted in the game, and finally US tank destroyers we able to fire indirect fire, also missing from the game, and for good reason in each case. Namely, they cannot be quantified effectively enough to be coded into software except by use the Steel Panther "German is Better in all cases" rule -- which of course does not work with the above cases.

Like it or not, superior optics may not have quantifiable tests done because they are not superior enough to be detected in tank on tank battles. If the difference was the presence or abscence of a laser sight then I would point you to some great data on tank accuracy, but in the case of the optics it is likely that the effect was way to small to measure in a meaningful way, just as the effects of better binoculars are not measureable in determining artillery accuracy.

Also:

1) Anything can be quantified for the purpose of science as long as you use good models, but not everything should be or needs to be. Still, you cannot argue that something cannot be quantified. You name the area, and I will give you a scale to quantify it for tests.

2) The German Undefeatable group is extant is wargaming, both on the ladders (for ASL and CM) and for design. No need to prove or disprove their existence. For these people, I would suggest adding a "Germans Always Win" button to CM, which will satisfy everyone in that camp.

3) If your answer to the above is "I am to practical and real world for science" then your high scool education, if any, has failed you and there is nothing that the modern world can do for you.

Steve Jackson

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

[aka_tom_w]

I have been posting about this German Optics issue for some time now in the 88 Lacking punch thread, And yes it is not new and not really surprising that Steve and Charles are requesting facts figures and data to be able to base any bonus or advantage the clarity of the Zeiss optics may have provided in targeting. I belive there was a distinct advantage AND when combined with seasoned gunnery veterans (4 year war fight experience for some of them) and (in the case of the Flak 88) that german donkey eared range finder AND the (now quantifiable) flatter and straighter trajectory of the high velocity rounds fired by the Long 88 and some other bigger German guns there should be a Clear and noticable advantage for German high velocity rounds to to hit at long ranges. Some here say long range is any thing over 800 meters, I'm not sure about that as it still seems a little close to me.

My point here is that two of the three elements here are quatifiable, the game as it stands now, is coded to model the high muzzle velocity of the rounds leaving the the gun and it ALSO models the skill of the crew, (and presumably the gunner) by ranking the crews from elite to conscript. So we can model fast rounds that shoot straight, and we can model Crew skill, so I still think there must be a way to model the gunnery optics element of the equation at long distance.

The eternal question here seems to be "But How?" using whose historically accurate data?

Good questions.

What we are (ok What I am,) asking for is an increased chance to hit at long range modification to the chance to hit algorythym.

The ONLY thing this should change is chance to hit and I would propose the at ranges over 1000 meters the Flak 88 (with NO damage and a crack or elite crew, WITH a range finder, standard equipment I understand on the Flak 88), "should" hit 50/50 over 1000 meters at a Sherman (high profile, that is NOT moving on a clear sunny day in open terrain) meaning that there would be a 50% chance to hit, and on the second shot there should be an 85 % chance to hit and on the third shot there should be a 95% chance to hit. We are talking about Crack and elite crews here, with range finders targeting a stationary high silouette target, in open terrain on a bright clear day.

Those are my suggestions for how increased accuracy should be modeled on the Flak 88.

Other German tanks that fire high velocity rounds, (a quantifiable variable) should be modeled to have the benefit of Zeiss optics and Flatter trajectories and have greater chance to hit percentages at ranges over 1000 meteres.

How much greater chance to hit is always the question.

-tom w

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

[Guest machineman]

If I've seen any bias here it is been by a few who CONSISTENTLY favor the Allies while rarely contributing any links, data, or research themselves. If I see they've posted something I KNOW they are posting the equivalent of 'German weapons were crap' or slapping the back of someone who does. Nationalism is understandable, but still irritating. You guys still read your Sgt Rock comics or what?

BTW the support for the gyrostabilizer sounds just as anecdotal as the sights to me, if not more so. There certainly hasn't been any unbiased, head to head testing that seems to be required for these marginal cases to be adopted. Maybe it's time to take to take it out of the game?

I'm not even going to mention the turrent traverse speed issue.

[Slapdragon]

Luckily, since I think the German optics are properly modelled, then I do not have to post any link -- since I am supporting the current understanding. As for the effect of gyros, read "Reluctant Valor" or "Men of the 704th" previously mentioned and ignored by your arguments. As for Nationalism, I play Free French on the ladder, but right now am playing three games as German and one as American.

Also, I am not on any national side, just on the side of science and against the use of mysticism. If the "German is better no matter what" side ever comes up with logical arguments the way danielh did, then I might lend more credence to what your faction says. However, your attempts to start a flame war tell me that your arguments, and those of your side, and not very strong. And since most of your side's argument consist of repeating the same test data when Charles does not use test data for penetration, and posting 3rd Person anecedotes on "better optics", then I am happy to remain removed from your coterie.

btw- "It was not possible to hit anything while moving at speed without the gyros....hooked in we could regularly make hits at speed." (Evans Oral testimony).

That would be one of your starting places to get the Gyros removed from the game.

It is probably useful also if you would start reading other people's posts before you use them to start a flame war.

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

[:USERNAME:]

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

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.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since when is the optics not part of the gun?

At the least, magnification helps gunnery if not spotting. I say again SPOTTING. The gunner becomes a part of the spotting process directed by the commander. He helps spot targets and then he attempts to kill them.

Theres plenty of evidence that the germans built into the main optics a range finding capability (triangle). Its also a given that they went into dual magnification. It seemed to stick around through the war and theres comments by US tankers that they were impressed.

These are facts:

High velocity helps gunnery because it is forgiving to mis judgements in range estimates.

magnification helps see what there is to shoot at.

Field of view helps as above.

You dont shoot at what you cant see.

Binoculars are nice to have and good ones are worthwhile.

Lewis

[PzKpfw 1]

Oh for Joy, Look more anecdotal evidence funny how ppl use it to support their opinion but use it to support a difereing veiw & its no good, .

Now I'm still waiting for some one to adress the magnification & filter difrences in US & UK optics vs the German optical devices. And someone explain to me how that if I can clearly see & observe shell fall @ 3000ms in my sight picture, & my sight is granulated for range by projectile type upto 4000ms & the oponets tank cant see clearly over 800 - 1000ms because of his optics, that the optics have no effect on gunnery accuracy.

La La La.........

Regards, John 'The Despised' 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).]

[Slapdragon]

John, simply reread the post. I said if you want to refute the model offered of the gyros you would start at the anecedotal evidence. Once you have discovered if they made a difference -- THEN you can dig into the firing data with a theory that having them did not effect movement at speed.

However -- seeing as you would prefer to misread the statement - that is cool.

[Slapdragon]

And someone explain to me how that if I can clearly see & observe shell fall @ 3000ms in my sight picture, & my sight is granulated for range by projectile type upto 4000ms & the oponets tank cant see clearly over 800 - 1000ms that the optics have no effevc on gunnery accuracy.

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

Again, you have it backwards -- YOU have to present a model that shows that different optics made a significant difference in hitting power. No one has to prove anything about the way the system works -- you have to prove it does not work then offer a new system.

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

[Mark IV]

There are some quantifiable areas that could make a difference:

Glass quality: purity of the lens, meaning optical clarity and thus accuracy at greater magnifications.

Grinding quality: the more perfect the finished curves, the more accurate at the longest ranges. Distortions cause misses.

Lens coatings: Low-light performance, glare reduction. A key factor in targeting optics of all kinds.

Reticles and range-finders: Higher accuracy, faster target acquisition, better lead indicators on moving targets.

Field of View: Faster target acquisition, greater situational awareness.

Physical Durability: Ability to retain "spec" performance over the wide variety of harsh conditions, including weather extremes, shock, and vibration experienced by AFVs in a real war.

These are at least some of the things optical and ballistic engineers would evaluate and quantify in assessing comparative merits of different sight manufactures. Not all of them directly affect the likelihood of a hit at long range, but together make a sight "better" or "worse" in the overall efficacy and survivability of the tank.

I suspect these things have been quantified and analyzed somewhere, and I hope someone finds them... there really is no place for emotion in such a straightforward factual case. I would love to know where the PE guy got his info... it was a very interesting article, but the bibliography might yield some rich primary sources.

The sight is only one part of an integrated shooting system, and aiming and trigger ergonomics and other tangibles also come into play.

Barrel and ammo quality? Big time factors at long range, maybe the biggest.

I often wonder if those fast turrets didn't yield something in the way of accuracy (though I don't know that they did). How precisely and incrementally, in mils, can a gunner control his traverse and elevation? These things are critical at 1000+m, where a minute of angle determines the difference between a kill and an enemy second chance.