How does the game simulate tank gunnery?

[Sabot]

****Man, you guys are serious! Mikeydz....Did you feel like an Aberdeen tester?

This "quick shot" or " lay center mass and fire" stuff comes from what is called "Battlesight" range. When Boresighting at say 1200m (modern day) the gun and sights are aligned at a point 1200m downrange. Any superelevation corrections for targets closer or further away than 1200m is handled by the computer from data from the laser rangefinder. Now, suppose the laser is out. You know that the gun is boresighted at 1200m. 1200m is your battlesight range. You push the battlesight button, or grap the power control handles and the gun will superelevate to hit a 1200m target. You can make Kentucky windage adjustments depending on your own range estimation and lead.

What Im trying to say is "battlesight" is a quick reference point for your gun....set beforehand that you may quickly use to engage targets without ranging them. US WWII Euro battlesight was 800m. modern Euro is 1200m. Modern desert is 2000m.

In close-range engagements, where speed is of the essance, or malfuntion of rangefinder....battlesight range is used to engage targets. I hope this isnt too rambling or disjointed....I dont have any books here handy to better explain it.

[aka_tom_w]

Oh back to my favourite thread of all time.

It opened with comments about German gunnery Optics and their added effectiveness.

I would like to comment further.....

I understand this point:

"The problem is not, "Are German optics better?" but "How much

better are German optics?". At least as far back as the last time they

commented on this issue, they did not have good data that quantifies

just how much of an improvement the German sights had on

targeting. Did they help 5%, 10% or more?"

And I understand the Chalres and Steve want some facts and figures

from "reality" to base any attempt at modeling superior German optics

on.

Ok I understand that BUT....

How did the model the advantage some Allied tanks have with that

Gyro Stabilizer.

Most historic info on that seems to indicate it was often disengaged by

the crew or it was poorly maintained. But that dubious or questionable

advantage is modeled in the game?

I do believe that those of us who care about this should find some

relevant facts and historical data (if it exists) to make our case for the

superior quality of the German Zeiss gunnery optics. I think this could

be modeled and in CMBO but it really "should" be modeled in CM2 as

the effects of this superior aiming and targeting ability at long ranges

was historically a factor (as I understand it) in many large long range

tank battles on the eastern front.

I do believe that in CMBO German tanks should be modeled with better

gunnery optics and appear more accurate. The question id of course,

"How much better, and how much more accurate"

Without any historical facts or any evidence what so ever I would like

to propose that as the range increase the german gunnery optics

should gradually get a percentage advantage of getting a hit over their

Allied counter parts.

I have no idea if this realistic but

if the range is over 500 m German optics provide a 5% targeting

bonus

if the range is over 750 m German optics provide a 10% targeting

bonus

if the range is over 1000 m German optics provide a 15% targeting

bonus

This targeting bonus would go on top of the current chance to hit as it

is now modeled and would only change the algorythym for the part of

the calculation that determines "chance for round to hit target"

nothing else.

This proposal may seem overly simplisitc, but my question to BTS is

how was the 'advantage" of the Allies' gyro stabilizer modeled? I would

suggest some similiar abstraction was added to the alogorythm for

those allied tanks with gyro stabilizers while they are on the move.

I do not know at all if my 5% 10% 15% targeting bonus is realistic at

all, but in some small way, especially for CM2 we (those devoted to

modeling German Zeiss gunnery optics) should propose some hard

historical facts and figures so that this German advantage can be

accurately and realistically modeled in the future.

I think most here would agree the Germans were known for having

better tank gunnery optics, our challenge is to quantify that

"betterness" into some actual numbers and percentages that Charles

can add to the targeting algorythms, if he and Steve choose to model

an advantage for German optics in CM2.

Any comments, suggestions, or (preferably) historical documentation

of how much superior German Optics were?

thanks

-tom w

Jeff Replies in another thread...

IP: Logged

Jeff Heidman

Member

posted 08-23-2000 09:19 AM

Tom, are you talking about ADDING 15% to the to hit chance, or

increasing the to hit chance by 15%? In other words, would a 15% hit

chance go up to .15+.15=30% or .15*1.15=17%

If the first, that is WAY too much, and if the second, it is not worth

the trouble...

Jeff

IP: Logged

aka_tom_w

Member

posted 08-23-2000 10:13 AM

quote:

Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

Tom, are you talking about ADDING 15% to the to hit

chance, or increasing the to hit chance by 15%? In

other words, would a 15% hit chance go up to

.15+.15=30% or .15*1.15=17%

If the first, that is WAY too much, and if the second, it

is not worth the trouble...

Jeff

Good Question Jeff.

Thanks.

Since I really don't know how much more effective those Zeiss optics

were. I'm just trying to stimulate conversation and research to come

up with some numbers that might accurately model the reality of the

their improved German gunnery optics.

I think I meant the later of your options:

"In other words, would a 15% hit chance go up to .15+.15=30% or

.15*1.15=17%"

I think I was suggesting the 17% chance to hit instead of 15% now if

that chance to hit was 80% an added 15% would be 80 * 1.15 = 92%

and I'd say that would be worth it.

I would really like to see some form of similar change to the German

targeting algorythm that the Allied Gyro Stabilizers provide.

I suspect this may require a new thread to bring it to the top but I'll

leave the discussion here for now.

Thanks for your comments Jeff. Math is not my strong suit so I

appreciate your query regarding how the actual numbers and

percentages and how they might effect the accuracy. I think the only

think the German optics advance should increase is just the chance to

hit.

comments?

-tom w

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

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Remember that no dumb bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

G. S. Patton

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[aka_tom_w]

from:

http://www.company7.com/zeiss/history.html

The Carl Zeiss Company History Page:

When World War II began (arguably) in September 1939 there was an air of invincibility in Germany, and in keeping with traditional

practice, most Zeiss products (and those of other manufacturers in Germany) had proudly borne the trademark, and city of their origin

of the product. However, soon it became clear that the Allies were able to identify and bomb targets in Germany. So, in February 1942

the German Armaments Ministry assigned three letter code marks to those companies engaged in fabricating military hardware. The

codes identified the manufacturer, and their facility of origin. Carl Zeiss Jena products employed code marks including "blc"; Leica

"beh", and so on.

There were forced foreign laborers ("Fremdarbeiter") brought to work at Carl Zeiss Jena and other German manufacturing facilities.

And it is certain that not all Germans were sympathetic to the Nazi regime, in fact there are known examples of intervention by the

Zeiss Personnel Department to obtain the release from prison of foreign laborers. Some Germans might warn newcomers to "what

what you say" around certain other Germans who might be Nazi party supporters. One foreign laborer at Jena recalls visiting a couple

whose son was at the Russian front and listening to the English news from London; he was later warned such conduct could lead to the

death penalty.

Zeiss optics figured prominently in the success of many weapons systems. For examples there were the pressure resistant U-Boat

targeting bearing transmitter binoculars, ultra wide angle large aperture binoculars, the stereoscopic range finders and sights used to

direct fearsome weapons such as the outstanding 88mm anti-tank guns. One of the most published early photographs of the war shows

Adolf Hitler outside of Warsaw Poland in September of 1939 observing through a pair of artillery director periscoping binoculars

(commonly used by a battery director to evaluate and correct artillery ranging) as the city is leveled by German artillery and air

forces.

However, with the turning tide as the end of the "Third Reich" approached, the advancing allied forces would discover interesting

products of German research and development efforts in many areas including optics. Among these was the "liberation" of at least one

200mm binocular made by Zeiss which weighed about 1200 lbs! These remain in the custody of the U.S. Government in Washington,

D.C. and are completing a comprehensive restoration by Mr. Kevin Kuhne in New Jersey even though there are no plans to display

them.

Intricate examples of complex lens making were found bearing Zeiss code marks indicating production after November 1944, even

though the need for such sophistication and refinement on one product in a nation beset by lack of raw materials and manpower could

be questioned. We have an example of a finely crafted hand held Zeiss 7x50 binocular with very sophisticated optics, two custom made

sets of filters, finely sewn leather case with straps and eyepiece rain guard (engraved "Benutzer" - for the use of) that was made at a

time while other Zeiss hand held military binoculars made were being shipped with painted prism housings instead of the pebble grain

exteriors and no accessories.

Major German cities were bombed during the war. Stuttgart for example was bombed in 1944 with the central district being obliterated

while the Contessa factory in the Henslack district suffered only minor damage. Jena was bombed by the U.S. 8th Air Force several

times during the course of the war, with increasing severity. In one bomb raid of 19 March 1945 witnessed by Lucas VanHilst "I was

standing outside a zig-zag "Schutzgraben" looking up to 'my friends', the first wave of whom just passed by so to speak. Then suddenly

a German soldier on leave grabbed me by the arm. "Mach' schnell, 'runter!!". The suction of an explosion threw me down the stairs.

He may well have saved my life. In the center section several persons were killed or wounded. The last bombardment was the worst.

The sight of carts loaded with dead bodies was shocking - as it would anywhere. That air attack did substantial damage to some Zeiss

and also to Schott buildings (where one of my Dutch friends was killed). The rather small "Alte Stadt" was totaled. Visiting in 1994 it

still was a sad sight."

There is evidence that the disruptions of raw materials and transport were having some chain reaction effect at Jena and those who

depended on products coming from Jena. In March the completion and delivery to the military of several new "Jagdtiger" (or "Hunting

Tiger") tanks were being held up by the late delivery of the special shock resistant (the tank had a 128mm gun!), precision sight

components from Carl Zeiss Jena.

It appears that towards the end of the war in Europe one of the last decisions made in the selection of targets for the allied air forces

was whether to bomb Schweinfurt (known for its ball bearing production, and a October 1943 bombing campaign that resulted in

tragic losses for the U.S. Army Air Forces and the German Luftwaffe), or Jena with its Zeiss and Jena works. Schweinfurt was selected

even though by then more than 35% of its production from the five factories had been dispersed.

On April 6, 1945 90th Infantry forces of the U.S. Third Army came upon the Kaiseroda salt mine near Merkers (a few miles inside the

border of Thuringia). The mine housed currency (including 98 million French francs, 2.7 billion Reichsmarks) and gold and coin

including the entire gold reserves in 550 bags each of 55 to 81 lbs. totaling nearly 250 tons from the Reichsbank in Berlin (including

711 bags each filled with $25,000 in U.S. $20 gold coins), and silent testament to victims of the Nazi's: stacks of valuables taken from

those at the death camps (jewelry - wedding rings, watch cases, gold filled glasses, teeth with gold and silver fillings, etc.), 400 tons of

art from Germany and works plundered from conquered nations, dozens of complex microscopes and other optical instruments made

by Zeiss and others. The entire 712th tank Battalion and the 357th Infantry regiment were also diverted to guard the mine in

preparation for removal of the items to the Reichsbank building in Frankfurt.

One humorous aside to this was that on the morning of April 12, Generals Eisenhower, Bradley, Patton and Maj. Gen. Manton Eddy

took the 1,600 foot elevator ride down into the shaft. When the elevator doors opened at the bottom of the shaft, a Private on guard

stumbled to salute, and in the tomblike stillness was heard to mutter "Jesus Christ!".

Among the most disconcerting discoveries made by the unprepared allied soldiers were the concentration death and labor camps. On

April 11 U.S. Third Army XX Corp forces overran Buchenwald (near Weimar and Jena) where some prisoners were employed as

slave labor for the manufacture and assembly of components including military binoculars with Zeiss code marks; on April 11

prisoners were observed throwing binoculars over the fence to passing allied soldiers.

The U.S. Third Army continued its advance, and on April 13 the regimental combat team 80th Division cleared Jena where they found

the Carl Zeiss factory complex had sustained what they described as "surprisingly little effective bomb damage". By then the original

large planetarium test dome was gone, even though nearby on another roof top a small telescope observatory dome remained. The

Yalta agreement fashioned between the allies political leadership had determined that Germany would be partitioned into four areas,

each under control of a major ally (England, France, Russia, U.S.A). All of the Zeiss facilities but the Contessa works in Stuttgart

(occupied by the French but designated for U.S. control) were in what would become the Russian zone of occupation; and so at Jena

over the course of several days the U.S. forces proceeded to evacuate manufacturing assets and documents.

At least some foreign laborers went with the U.S. Third Army to act in capacities such as "member-translator" of outfits such as the

"Civic Affairs Team TA-4" traveling as far east as Vimperk (Winterburg), Czechia. With the rapid advances into areas being newly

occupied the letter of the law or procedure were not always adhered to; just imagine running into a person in U.S. army uniform

carrying a carbine, with a Dutch passport!

The members of the Carl Zeiss Jena board of management and the most vital staff including Professor Dr. Ing. Walther Bauersfeld

(1879-1959) Scientific Head with the company since 1908, Dr. Ing. Heinz Kuppenbender, Professor Dr. Joos, Paul Henrichs, and about

130 engineers and technicians were evacuated to western Germany occupied by allied forces to what would become the Federal

Republic of Germany. The evacuees were advised by the American officials (reportedly in an early version of "make them an offer

they can not refuse") that they would be moved to the American Zone of occupation; there are accounts that some went voluntarily and

others were given no choice. Army trucks were assigned to move the families who were afforded only enough time to pack a suitcase.

The 65 year old Frau Bauersfeld was allowed to take (as a last minute concession) one armchair for the long ride in the back of the

truck. Months later, with the help of a neighbor and some luck one of Prof. Bauersfelds daughters moved from Jena the family

Steinway piano on a railway car to Heidenheim. Zeiss Administrator Joos went on to the United States.

Within as little a few weeks after the fighting concluded, some Zeiss facilities were back at work. The Contessa works at Stuttgart

resumed production of Ikonta and Nettar film cameras. German military and civilian optics of the period remain among the most

sought after "war trophies" taken home by occupying forces; to this day many people represent undocumented binoculars as being the

personal Zeiss of Field Marshal Erwin Rommel.

Shortly afterwards, in compliance with the Yalta agreements the U.S.military forces departed. In June or early July the Russian

military forces occupied Jena and the remainder of what became East Germany (German Democratic Republic). By one year later, the

Russians had evacuated much of the remaining technical and management staff and about 92% of the Carl Zeiss Jena manufacturing

facilities to the east. Other German manufacturing assets were also confiscated under the reparations provisions; these gutted many

factories mostly in the Russian occupied zone. At Dresden, the Contax rangefinder camera dies and some staff were taken to Kiev. It is

likely the Russians wanted to emasculate Germany and/or take whatever reparations they could against a Germany that had decimated

Russia's population (less so than Stalin). Further, the Russian fear of possible further conflict with the western allies rendered moving

any production capability into a more defensible Russian province a logical strategic step.

After the war, the "Zeiss Stiftung von Jena" was established at Heidenheim with the "Opton-Optische Werstatte Oberkochen GmbH"

factory at Oberkochen on the banks of the Kocher River near Stuttgart, with the Schott Glass Works subsidiary located at Mainz.

-tom notes

While this is "sort of Research" and does show that Zeiss Optics were used in the War effort, it does not give any actual indication as to how much better German Gunnery optics were.

i'll keep looking.

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

This is interesting.

from:

http://www.panzerelite.com/faqmsgboard.html

There are some questions and answers from the Panzer Elite Board, about they model tank Gunnery.

An interesting read:

QUESTION: Zeiss Optics: If I'm aiming at something (looking through the gunner reticle) and I change the shell type (from

AP to HE) I think that the reticle should change position due to the different muzzle velocity of the different shell. If the

target is at 500 m, I put the first right triangle on it when I read AP500, I shoot and my shot is fairly accurate. If I change to

HE the reticle doesn't change position. I read HE500, I shoot and my shot is short because the shell's speed was lower. The

reticle should change position to make me elevate the gun to make up for the difference in muzzle velocity.

ANSWER: The Zeiss optics were used for AP ammo mainly, to fire HE the gunner just "added" 200 meters to the target's assumed

range. This is historical.

PROBLEM: I don't see any option to delete saved games, how do I do this?

SOLUTION: This was an oversight and it will be corrected in the future. For now you must do it manually, in the Panzer

Elite\**\SAVEGAMES folder (** is the campaign you are in, i.e., `Desert').

PROBLEM: Several of us have drawn attention over the past weeks to a tendency for the AI gunner, in the midst of

generally accurate and consistent targeting and shooting, to sometimes enter a phase of shooting 5 or 6 shots in succession 20

or 30 degrees off line, with no apparent or obvious reason. This is still occurring after 1.07 final and I am wondering whether

this was investigated.

ANSWER: We know about this but we can't recreate it. This makes it very hard to debug, we are still looking into this.

QUESTION: What factors go into the gunnery in PE?

ANSWER: The factors we use are:

- Target range: Longer range makes it close to impossible, but not impossible to hit.

- Target speed: More speed = worse hit chance

- Target size: 5 different target sizes

- Line of sight obstructions: They reduce hit probability and spotting probability, the best initial defense.

- Wind speed.

- Wind direction in relation to your path of aim.

- Relative quality of the gun system: PE uses 4 modifier to show various qualities: S, normal, L and LL. S is the worst while LL is

the best. This is basically a combination of barrel length, muzzle velocity, and to lesser extent; optics and fire control equipment.

- Gunner quality: His skill plays a major role.

PE does not use:

-Target aspect: We do not use target aspect, or we use a simplified version. The target size for a side shot could be increased by 1

though, but I don't think it would matter much.

-Target maneuvering: We don't take that into account, we only take the current speed at the moment when the shot gets off.

QUESTION: When does AI use the special rounds such as HEAT, APDS, etc.?.

ANSWER: The AI (Enemy tanks and your wingmen) "knows" if it can penetrate it's target or not by simple means (not taking exact

calculation, it does a rough quickie on those). If not, it tries to drive closer or uses APS (or Heat) if available.

[aka_tom_w]

from this web page:

http://www.history.enjoy.ru/is2_3.html

"Compared with the Tiger, the IS-2 was slightly better protected even though it was ten

tons lighter.. The 88 mm and 122 mm guns had more or less the same AP ability, but

again, German gun had less HE ability. Both tanks could penetrate each other's

frontal armor from ~1000 metres. At greater distances success highly depended on

experience of the crew and battle conditions.

The IS-2 had thicker armor, thus it had a better chance at distances over 1500 metres.

On the other hand, the Tiger had better optics and thus had a better chance of hitting the IS-2. The main drawback of the Tiger was the slow angular velocity of the turret.

However, the Tiger had an excellent length/width ratio (almost 1:1) which made it

extremely maneuverable. And if the Tiger could not traverse its turret fast enough, the whole tank could swivel to bring the gun to bear."

Still looking for how much better German Zeis Gunnery Optics were...

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

Still posting to this thread to generate more actual historical data on German Zeiss Tank Gunnery optics in WWII.

Still searching for relevant info.

-tom w

[Mikester]

Hey Tom,

Seems whatever optics that were in my Panzer that clocked your Sherman(?) last night at 1400+ meters seemed to be working just fine. And on the first shot no less, on a target that had just stopped moving. (actually, I think I got really lucky to tell you the truth)

I'd actually be interested in hearing more about this subject as well. It is pretty much a known fact that the German optics were generally better than the allied ones. Is there any test data the allies generated based on captured vehicles comparing the two, etc.?

Mike D

aka Mikester

[This message has been edited by Mikester (edited 08-23-2000).]

[aka_tom_w]

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

Hey Tom,

Seems whatever optics that were in my Panzer that clocked your Sherman(?) last night at 1400+ meters seemed to be working just fine. And on the first shot no less, on a target that had just stopped moving. (actually, I think I got really lucky to tell you the truth)

I'd actually be interested in hearing more about this subject as well. It is pretty much a known fact that the German optics were generally better than the allied ones. Is there any test data the allies generated based on captured vehicles comparing the two, etc.?

Mike D

aka Mikester

[This message has been edited by Mikester (edited 08-23-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ha ha ha

Yes dead eye dick Heinz back there with the ZEISS optics DId smoke an Allied Tank at over 1400 meters, and it was moving, or should have been, NICE shot!

I will continue to pursue the having the Zeiss gunnery optics accounted for as I think (again) that it should play a larger factor in long distance tank battles in CM2 in the eastern front.

now back to the War...

(mike and I are in a PBEM but is is still early in the game, turn 3)

-tom w

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

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Remember that no dumb bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

G. S. Patton

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>