German tank optics seem lacking. Just a gripe

[:USERNAME:]

I am really aghast at alot of this.

Is BTS going to continue this speculation into the eastern front? Is there proof that russian optics were poor? What will be BTS' take on this?

I see alot of this in the engineering world. People get a bug up their ass and expect the rest of the world to challenge and then prove any inkling against "holy bug" like THEY have to defend a thesis.

Steve, How many tank weapons you sited? Fired? Ever boresighted? Ever sighted anything through binos on a tank? Would you believe that even the engine running will send vibration through your body and blur your vision? Ever seen moisture inside a cheap sight? Ever used sights in low light? Ever used lighted sights? Can you guess ranges to within a 100 meters by eyesight to 1500 meters? Know how to see targets in the dimmest of light?

Hey you are a civilian. Case closed.

Lewis

[Lorak]

Lewis,

Now that is a lame post.

Using a lot of the sights mentioned means nothing. Yes vibration is bad, look on the edge of your vision at night, when scouting in dark areas keep an eye out for inverted "v"'s and the like that are not normally found in nature, yada,yada,yada.

For one I think that the sights we have now are most likely better than the optics the Germans had in WWII(not including thermal, laser, ect).

Here is a question. How much of a percentage would you give the american sights(regular) today over the german ones? Also once you come up with a % I'd love to hear how you came up with it.

No one is arguing that the german optics were not better. The question is "How much better?" What were trying to figure out is a realistic bonus and at what ranges. Not just a figure someone is pulling out of their butt.

Also what does being a VET have to do with having sense? I saw a hell of a lot of idiots in the forces.

By the way I am a vet, but unlike you I joined to do my duty, not wear the status like a badge in a secret club.

Lorak

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

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

Cesspool

[Simon Fox]

Some good discussion on the subject at last. If only John and Slappy would stop sniping at each other all would be OK. John, you need to understand that in science it's expected that you rip someone's arguments to shreds but it's not personal, so in the words of the immortal GAZ "chill out". I blame tom_w for this thread , I suggested ages ago he should go and do some real research on his pet subject. But no, he was just a "slackass posterboy" who kept niggling away, posting the same old anecdotes and links to previous discussions: 'tom the optics cheerleader'

Anecdotal/subjective evidence has it's place in this discussion but it needs to be taken in it's context. When it comes from a document lobbying for better tanks for US units then it seems sensible to consider it with caution when compared with documentation without an axe to grind. Optics and the interaction with human visual acuity is a pretty precise science compared to armour penetration which sometimes is more akin to witchcraft. I am astounded that no one who really wants German optical superiority modelled has been able to obtain better defined evidence than a mishmash of feelings and generalised opinions. I am sure it is out there we just have to do something about the head:date juxtaposition. It seems that while some people take a particular interest in the field of armour penetration the same cannot be said about optics.

Firstly, let's make it perfectly clear there was no inherent superiority in German optical technology. At the start of WWII Germany, France, Britain and USA were pretty much on a par in that regard. But, the capacity of the German optical industry was sufficient to supply their relatively small tank output. In contrast, Britain and the USA had to initially accept a quality deficiency because of the larger number of tanks they produced. In time as their industries expanded the gap closed and by 1943/44 they could pretty much match the Germans in this regard. The fact is that it is fairly pointless equipping a tank with a fairly low velocity 75mm gun with optics capable of extremely long engagment ranges because the gun itself is not that accurate at those ranges.

Secondly, there is no such thing as the "US tank sight" or "German tank sight" or "Zeiss optics" for that matter. These simplistic notions merely lead to confusion, since generally speaking the capabilities of the gun were matched to those of the optics. If anything it needs to be broken down by vehicle for both sides. A blanket bonus to German tanks would be vehemently opposed by me since British optics were better than US and therefore should also get a bonus. Furthermore, 17pdr gun equipped vehicles had special optical sights different from 75mm vehicles.

Finally, there is a considerable difference between theoretical optical performance and practical performance. Consider the example of coincidence vs stereoscopic rangefinders. The latter are clearly technically superior. Yet coincidence rangefinders persisted in use by some because difficulties in operation and training meant that under battle conditions there was little practical difference between the two. As already pointed out the more accurate instrument may be more complex, time consuming to operate, increase operator fatigue and be less robust.

I see Lewis is reverting to his previous persona.

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

"Fatso-the battlers' prince"

[This message has been edited by Simon Fox (edited 10-03-2000).]

[aka_tom_w]

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

Some good discussion on the subject at last.

(snip)

I blame tom_w for this thread , I suggested ages ago he should go and do some real research on his pet subject. But no, he was just a "slackass posterboy" who kept niggling away, posting the same old anecdotes and links to previous discussions: 'tom the optics cheerleader'

(snip)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

that sounded like a taunt

but I think I'll have to sleep on it just to be sure....

-tom w

[Slapdragon]

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

Some good discussion on the subject at last. If only John and Slappy would stop sniping at each other all would be OK. John, you need to understand that in science it's expected that you rip someone's arguments to shreds but it's not personal, so in the words of the immortal GAZ "chill out". I blame tom_w for this thread , I suggested ages ago he should go and do some real research on his pet subject. But no, he was just a "slackass posterboy" who kept niggling away, posting the same old anecdotes and links to previous discussions: 'tom the optics cheerleader'

Anecdotal/subjective evidence has it's place in this discussion but it needs to be taken in it's context. When it comes from a document lobbying for better tanks for US units then it seems sensible to consider it with caution when compared with documentation without an axe to grind. Optics and the interaction with human visual acuity is a pretty precise science compared to armour penetration which sometimes is more akin to witchcraft. I am astounded that no one who really wants German optical superiority modelled has been able to obtain better defined evidence than a mishmash of feelings and generalised opinions. I am sure it is out there we just have to do something about the head:date juxtaposition. It seems that while some people take a particular interest in the field of armour penetration the same cannot be said about optics.

Firstly, let's make it perfectly clear there was no inherent superiority in German optical technology. At the start of WWII Germany, France, Britain and USA were pretty much on a par in that regard. But, the capacity of the German optical industry was sufficient to supply their relatively small tank output. In contrast, Britain and the USA had to initially accept a quality deficiency because of the larger number of tanks they produced. In time as their industries expanded the gap closed and by 1943/44 they could pretty much match the Germans in this regard. The fact is that it is fairly pointless equipping a tank with a fairly low velocity 75mm gun with optics capable of extremely long engagment ranges because the gun itself is not that accurate at those ranges.

Secondly, there is no such thing as the "US tank sight" or "German tank sight" or "Zeiss optics" for that matter. These simplistic notions merely lead to confusion, since generally speaking the capabilities of the gun were matched to those of the optics. If anything it needs to be broken down by vehicle for both sides. A blanket bonus to German tanks would be vehemently opposed by me since British optics were better than US and therefore should also get a bonus. Furthermore, 17pdr gun equipped vehicles had special optical sights different from 75mm vehicles.

Finally, there is a considerable difference between theoretical optical performance and practical performance. Consider the example of coincidence vs stereoscopic rangefinders. The latter are clearly technically superior. Yet coincidence rangefinders persisted in use by some because difficulties in operation and training meant that under battle conditions there was little practical difference between the two. As already pointed out the more accurate instrument may be more complex, time consuming to operate, increase operator fatigue and be less robust.

I see Lewis is reverting to his previous persona.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A beautiful post! I second all motions, but I question your use of a woodchuck in this case where a nutria might be more suited.

[Wilhammer]

Qoute from danielh

[What we have here, is that testdata and the design suggest a strong advantage, but what is lacking is actual testimony from both sides in combat. (Also the germans should have had noticed such a gain in lethality...).]

The problem for this system is that it was tied to guns that were not good German tank killers. I doubt you would report the hits that did nothing but bounce off. In the heat of battle, you would not even know it many times. Was it a tank round? A mine? Artillery? Grenades? Something fall in the back?

The Gyro tied to an effective weapon means poor lethality, more hits, but no damage.

[Guest Big Time Software]

I am going to ask John and Steve to both take a "timeout". Obviously I agree that the pro-optics side is using sloppy science, and then accusing us of being the ones doing it because they can't make a strong case. But that is just my opinion Just like it is my opinion that Lewis is an ass sometimes. Case closed on that one too

As with most Lewistirades™, there is at least one valid issued burried in the usual disrespect for me in particular. What are we going to do about the Eastern Front or the earlier battles with the West in regards to optics. Honestly, we don't quite know at this point. But the debate about the 1944/45 Western Allies vs. Germans has nothing to do with that future discussion directly. We have stated a difference of opinion about the impact of the German optics on their accuracy vs. the impact of the Allies optics on their accuracy. When we move to the Eastern Front we feel there is a much stronger case to be made that there was a noticable difference, just as we feel there is such a case to be made for North Africa (for example).

All things in good time.

Steve

[Simon Fox]

Aieeeee! "I am really aghast" (to quote a VET) that I should be misunderstood. I would never denigrate Fatso the fat-arsed wombat, the battler's prince, by comparing him with Lewis, in which comparison the latter would surely suffer substantially. Alas the unfortunate juxtaposition of my last comment and the image in my sig gave this false impression.

As for tom_w, call it "taunt" if you will but that seems a little confrontational, I prefer 'taking the piss' hehe.

Now all I need to do is get Fatso to do his business and he is ready for the cesspool.

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

"Fatso-the battlers' prince"

[This message has been edited by Simon Fox (edited 10-03-2000).]

[Slapdragon]

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

I am going to ask John and Steve to both take a "timeout". Obviously I agree that the pro-optics side is using sloppy science, and then accusing us of being the ones doing it because they can't make a strong case. But that is just my opinion Just like it is my opinion that Lewis is an ass sometimes. Case closed on that one too

As with most Lewistirades™, there is at least one valid issued burried in the usual disrespect for me in particular. What are we going to do about the Eastern Front or the earlier battles with the West in regards to optics. Honestly, we don't quite know at this point. But the debate about the 1944/45 Western Allies vs. Germans has nothing to do with that future discussion directly. We have stated a difference of opinion about the impact of the German optics on their accuracy vs. the impact of the Allies optics on their accuracy. When we move to the Eastern Front we feel there is a much stronger case to be made that there was a noticable difference, just as we feel there is such a case to be made for North Africa (for example).

All things in good time.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Done and done oh sahib of military games (or co-sahib as the case may be). Your wish in this arena is my command, I will turn a biblical cheek and reread Peng posts

[Slapdragon]

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

Aieeeee! "I am really aghast" (to quote a VET) that I should be misunderstood. I would never denigrate Fatso the fat-arsed wombat, the battler's prince, by comparing him with Lewis, in which comparison the latter would surely suffer substantially. Alas the unfortunate juxtaposition of my last comment and the image in my sig gave this false impression.

As for tom_w, call it "taunt" if you will but that seems a little confrontational, I prefer 'taking the piss' hehe.

Now all I need to do is get Fatso to do his business and he is ready for the cesspool.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have to understand Simon, when you don't live your life upside down a furry brown thing with a big ass looks like woodchuck, but when I turned my monitor updside down I saw that indeed it is a wombat, and I am happyh that it is not your image of Lewis.

[CavScout]

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

Steve, How many tank weapons you sited? Fired? Ever boresighted? Ever sighted anything through binos on a tank? Would you believe that even the engine running will send vibration through your body and blur your vision? Ever seen moisture inside a cheap sight? Ever used sights in low light? Ever used lighted sights? Can you guess ranges to within a 100 meters by eyesight to 1500 meters? Know how to see targets in the dimmest of light?

Hey you are a civilian. Case closed.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Using this logic all non-game programmers can have no say in what they have programmed in CM. Simply silly.

BTW, I have done all what you asked. Mostly on M3s but I have fired a few 120s and helped boresight. Does this make me all knowing?

Cav

[Claus B]

Probably will regret to enter this flamin' hell hole of a thread but anyway...

I recently had the opportunity to operate the sights of an SP, 17pdr M10 ("Achilles) and have previosly played around with the sights of several German AFVs and anti-tank guns. I won't comment on clarity, because many of these are museum examples and more than 50 years old so you really dont know where they have been and what they may have been subjected to. And yes, I am a civilian and have no training in this whatsoever.

The PaK 40 sight is easy to operate because of the ranging scales for the various types of ammo. Look, make a qualified guess on range and set the dial according to ammo type. If I recall correctly, the PaK 40 sigh also has these small triangles you can use to estimate range.

The 17pdr sight was quite a dissapointment, as it has no scales, just two knobs to adjust the sight horizontally and vertically. You immidiatly get the feeling "Hey, this looks primitive". But when you think it over, all the 17pdr gunner had to do was to know the standard settings for the 3 or 4 different ammo-types used. He had no fancy scales, but as long as he knew how many clicks he had to turn the knob, he would be no worse off than the German PaK gunner. There is no aid in the 17pdr sight to estimate range, just a simple cross-hairs.

I just wonder how much these ranging aids in the sight helps? With high-velocity guns like the 7,5cm PaK and the 17pdr, at normal combat ranges (up to 800-1000 meters?) it would basically be point and shot because of the flat trajectory of the projectile.

At longer ranges, having the little triangles to help you estimate range may give you an edge, but it is still only an estimate.

On the other hand, I know from firing manuals of the PaK 39 (Hetzer) that when firing at longer ranges, it was recommended to use "bracketing fire", that is to fire one round deliberately long, observe the fall, then move back so you would hit short of the target. With the observation of these two shots in relation to the target, you would now have a pretty good idea of the actual range to the target. The firing manual states that you could use this method firing the slow-moving Gr.38 Hl (HEAT) round against *moving* targets up to 1200 meters, so I guess it must have been a pretty effective way of measuring range.

The point of this is, that this method is not related to the "quality" or ranging devices in the sights. As long as you could observe the fall of the shot, you would be on your way to a hit. And this would be the same for any gunner with any gun. Furthermore, observing the fall of shot was often done by the commande

[JeffRaider]

/me lines up an 88mm on the whole crowd.

Look, Ma! No Hands(or optics)!

BOOM.

[CavScout]

Hmmm... has a page been lost?

[Mark IV]

Yes. Probably no loss, though.

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV:

Yes. Probably no loss, though.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That blows.

[The DesertFox]

Cav,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think more important is at what range did a gunner START to use the range finding device. Beyond that range is when you would worry about "optical" sight quality.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That isn´t that hard. Look at one of the FIBELN how german gunners aquired the target and range. The guns were calibrated at 1000m and due to the flat trajectory of the 88s and the 75L70 it doesn´t matter if one engages a target at 800 or 900 metres. If one aimes exactly middle of the target between turret and hull one scores a hit. Nevertheless does the gunner have to measure the exact distance of the target, for that purpose he has the triangles.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If all other things were equal, perhaps. But we know this is not the case. Even if German and Allied optics were EXACTLY equal, the Germans, for the most part, would be more accurate because their guns fired in such a way as to be more lenient because of round trajectory.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is correct because of the flat trajectory of the gun. It doesn´t matter if the target is at 800 or 900 metres. Exact measurement of the range becomes the more important the more the trajectory of the projectile is less than flat.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So I take it you are no longer debating for better optical QUALITY in German sights but for a better range finder?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That goes hand in hand, but it doesn´t play a role at short distances. The farer away the target and the more exact the optic including the rangefinder (which is part of the optic), the higher is the propability to hit the target. German optics allowed to measure distance up to 4000 metres (dependant on ammo used, see above) which allowed EXACT targeting at maximum ranges. So you see, if one optic has the rangefinding equipment for long ranges and the other has not it´s not the question if you can see the target through your optic, but if you can measure the distance to your target at all or if you have to rely on trained guessing (which can be mostly exact for an elite crew, but without doubt would not be as exact as measurement would be)

Bottomline is that the rangefinding mechanism which is build in the optics makes the difference between a hit and a near miss. And this hit very often decided about life and death.

So as I already stated, first find out until which distance you can exactly measure and then try to quantify the difference between distance measurement and distance guessing. And this quantification will be the hard job.

cheers

Helge

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

Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate!

- The DesertFox -

Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com

WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

[aka_tom_w]

did we loose some posts to this thread?

I think so?

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

I think we've lost a whoe bunch of posts on those Panzer Elite gunnery optics

Between a bout 6:08 AM and about 3:38 pm everything is missing?

I did notice difficulty with the server earlier today while attempting to post

two or three time I got and unusual error message.

I suspect some form of techincal server trouble

-tom w

[Ari Maenpaa]

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

The reason people say that German guns are already more accurate in CM is that most German guns are higher velocity than most Allied. However, this is somewhat mitegated by the fact that some German tanks such as the Panther have a very large profile rating in CM, making them "big targets".

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just a little observation:

Jentz states in his "Germany's Tiger Tanks - VK45.02 to Tiger II" that size comparison between 76mm Sherman and King Tiger was unfavorable for the Sherman. It was taller and therefore presented an easier target (there are size-comparison photos in the book).

This seems to indicate that tank's height was the most critical measurement when it is being targeted or shot at. I have also seen other sources that as well criticize Shermans for their height when compared to their counterparts.

Combat Mission's silhouette values don't correlate with these statements. In CM KT's silhouette is 135, Sherman76's 104 and Panther's 118 (v. 1.05). Surely these values are well thought (as is everything else in CM), so most likely it's me who is missing here something important.

For gunnery/optics issue I would suggest that the gunnery accuracy between the low and high velocity guns should be adjusted to favor the high velocity guns more.

Disclaimer:

Even if I have started couple of topics to make some German tank better in CM, I don't generally feel to be gratuitously pro German biased. It's my humble intention to help to get all the tanks (and other stuff too) as historically accurately modelled as possible. It just happened that first tank books I bought were Jentz's "Germany's Tiger Tanks" and his Panther book. Next one is most likely Hunnicut's Sherman book.

Also I don't understand the concern that it would imbalance the game if the German (or American for that matter) tanks are made better _IF_ the point costs are modified accordingly. They are there only to make the game balanced.

Ari

[Slapdragon]

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

Just a little observation:

Jentz states in his "Germany's Tiger Tanks - VK45.02 to Tiger II" that size comparison between 76mm Sherman and King Tiger was unfavorable for the Sherman. It was taller and therefore presented an easier target (there are size-comparison photos in the book).

This seems to indicate that tank's height was the most critical measurement when it is being targeted or shot at. I have also seen other sources that as well criticize Shermans for their height when compared to their counterparts.

Combat Mission's silhouette values don't correlate with these statements. In CM KT's silhouette is 135, Sherman76's 104 and Panther's 118 (v. 1.05). Surely these values are well thought (as is everything else in CM), so most likely it's me who is missing here something important.

For gunnery/optics issue I would suggest that the gunnery accuracy between the low and high velocity guns should be adjusted to favor the high velocity guns more.

Disclaimer:

Even if I have started couple of topics to make some German tank better in CM, I don't generally feel to be gratuitously pro German biased. It's my humble intention to help to get all the tanks (and other stuff too) as historically accurately modelled as possible. It just happened that first tank books I bought were Jentz's "Germany's Tiger Tanks" and his Panther book. Next one is most likely Hunnicut's Sherman book.

Also I don't understand the concern that it would imbalance the game if the German (or American for that matter) tanks are made better _IF_ the point costs are modified accordingly. They are there only to make the game balanced.

Ari<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem is not really the cost but the slim evidence extant on the optics issue vis a vis do they really effect accuracy in game terms. Overmodeling the German optics based upon what amounts to urban legend is probably not a good idea -- because we can pull 50 other urban legends out of a hat and trott them out on stage for consideration, none of them useful for making CM a better game.

[Ron]

Here's a couple blasts from the past. The first one Fionn talks about the differences between Allied and German optics and the relevence to CM. The second one Sabot imparts some interesting RL observations.

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/001449.html

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/004572.html

Ron

[danielh]

I think the whole optics thing was explained completely wrong.

IT'S NOT THE QUALITY OF THE GLASSES, BUT INSTEAD THE MAN MACHINE INTERFACE !

What that means IMO - and my experience only goes back to Panzer Elite - that in a M4 there is (almost) no means to gather range information, whereas with the german system it was genuinely easy ! (Already as a 10 - year old kid i could understand it (i had an example of the "Tiger Fibel" a training manual for the Tiger I), this in CONJUNCTION with a quite flat trajectory makes it easy to hit a target stationary within 1000 m almost with the first shot at average for a regular trained tanker. Below 700 m the trajectories also in the M4 makes it easy to hit since ranging errors would not make that big difference.

So the problem for acurate shots beyond is RANGE aqcuiring.

Maybe somebody in that huge forum can explain us equally detailed as with the "Zeiss-system" (Available at the Panzer Elite site) how the System(s) for the M4 worked.....

To Wilhammer and the gyro-subject, does the gyro compensate for infinite accelerations ?

Greets

Daniel

[Wilhammer]

Can we recover? Many posts between this morning and this evening in this thread have vanished.

[Wilhammer]

If you tell your browser to load http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/010850-8.html

You can see all of today's posts up to around 4 pm.