88mm KwK 36 L/56 accuracy test and some ideas

[PzKpfw 1]

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

I got these from Thomas R. aka “Conell” with the accompanying note:

Great stuff Conell. Thanks for your digging. What by the way is your source?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jeff can you scan the Panther's TzF12a, & Tiger E & B's TzF9c & 9d, for comparison?.

Regards, John Waters

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

"Hell ain't a bad place, hell is from here to eternity"

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

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[Jeff Duquette]

I know this is sacrilege to utter these words John…but I don’t own Jentz’s work on the Panther. Anyway here are two of the Tz9 versions.

Tz9b

Tz9b/1

Blow up of the "triangles" the big one is 4 x 4 mils...the little uns' are 2 x 2 mils. If I read Mike McConnels right up correctly a target that fills up the big triangle at 1000meters is approximately 4 meters in height. An image from PE showing Ziess sight

"This sight picture is from a M38A2 telescope. The M38A2 was used with both the M3 (75mm) and the M1 (76mm) guns. The cross at the top of the range tree is for targets under 500 yards away. The 8, 16, 24, 36, and 42 marks on the range tree indicates the needed elevation to hit targets at 800, 1600, 2400, 3600, and 4200 yards, respectively." (from Mike McConell)

[Conall]

The scans are from a War Office document, dated March 1945, "A guide to A.F.V. Telescopes", which I got from Bovington.

regards,

Conall

[This message has been edited by Conall (edited 11-11-2000).]

[PzKpfw 1]

Thx Jeff. WHAT turn in your tank club card ..

Anyway concerning sights, notice the difrences? German tanks have a way to determine the range & zize of the target, US sights have no range determination ability at all other then makeing a guesstimate and adjusting shotfall accordingly.

Jeff after looking thru a few books I cant figure out the Korean war 3 shot at 1500m claim as from what I can the find the the steroscopic RF was the 1st US sight development after the war. & the SRF was designed for the T-37 project but was considered to complicated for use and dropped and an improved version appeared later in the M48, so far it appears Shermans etc, in Korea used WW2 type sights.

Regards, John Waters

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

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[Jeff Duquette]

John

I know what your saying, and perhaps German Tank crews should be getting a beefed up percent “To Hit” on both first and subsequent rounds fired. But I also think that the Tz9b is a rather subjective form of range finding…very dependent upon crew training and experience (this is where the elite crack (pot) German Tiger gunners come in). A gunner has to be familiar with prospective target sizes and than “guestimate” how much of the 4 mil ranging triangle the target fills to get a “feel” for range to target. In addition he has to do this while remaining “cool” (i.e. putting on a pair of ray-bans sunglasses, a silky jacket that has “Leibstandarte Bowling Team” stenciled on the back, and smoke Camel Cigarettes).

Granted it is better than the US method of fire and adjust, but Ziess aint a coincidence or stereoscopic system in which a 2,000meter range can be estimated within +/- one meter. On the other hand WWII anti-tank gun crews are often captured in contemporary photos using Coincidence\Stereoscopic type range finders (or maybe I’m thinking of Flak 88 gun crews). Anyway the point being that these ATG folks have a relatively accurate tool by which to establish range, and from the digging I’ve been doing range estimating, and excitable gunners are the two most contributing factors to “misses” in tank on tank or tank on ATG encounters. In addition it is easy for a gun crew to place their spotter outside the zone of dust and flash from firing (and the plume of smokeless powder ) in order to observe fall of shot or a rounds tracer element. So I guess in my mind the standard to compare to would be the accuracy of anti-tank guns. WWII Tank gunnery had to be less accurate than ATG fire

Conall

Received the additional optics images for British weapons. Thanks much. Sorry about the "e". Here is another of Conall’s finds: A great scan of a British 17-pounder gunsight.

Yahoo is dragging its ass today so the image may load slowly or not at all...try back later if it doesnt load initially.

[PzKpfw 1]

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

John

I know what your saying, and perhaps German Tank crews should be getting a beefed up percent “To Hit” on both first and subsequent rounds fired. But I also think that the Tz9b is a rather subjective form of range finding…very dependent upon crew training and experience (this is where the elite crack (pot) German Tiger gunners come in). A gunner has to be familiar with prospective target sizes and than “guestimate” how much of the 4 mil ranging triangle the target fills to get a “feel” for range to target. In addition he has to do this while remaining “cool” (i.e. putting on a pair of ray-bans sunglasses, a silky jacket that has “Leibstandarte Bowling Team” stenciled on the back, and smoke Camel Cigarettes).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jeff what I'm trying to show is their was a very real tangeble diference in German & US optics that affected gunnery accuracy, as the Germans had a much better sight in power & clarity as well as an aid to determine range by target size, the US did not, and basicly used Kentucky windage in an engagement to determine range, as the range garnualtions were for elevation only.

I never implied the Germans had an stereoscipic sight even with a stereoscopic sight it still would fall back on a 'calm' gunner as you pointed out and even discussing how crews reacted under combat is a subjective matter .

My points here are not that the Germans deserve an advantage in % to hit, but to illustrate they did have an advantage over Allied optics, in range estimation, which is why Allied crews considered German optics better then theirs after examination.

Regards, John Waters

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

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 11-11-2000).]

[Jeff Duquette]

Agree completely John. Unfortunately I always feel the need to bring the discussion back to game terms. How does the advantage in German Optics play out in terms of “To Hit” calculations? What is your feeling on CM’s modeling in this respect? Is the model ok…or does it need tweaking. Maybe you have already expressed your opinion in a previous postings and I missed it in between all of my blabbing

How do you read the 17 pounder optics?

Regarding Korea…I wonder if perhaps American main gun optics were replaced with more of a Zeiss type optics after the war. Doesn’t seem like it would be too much of a stretch to upgrade tank optics.

[Guest machineman]

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

I know what your saying, and perhaps German Tank crews should be getting a beefed up percent “To Hit” on both first and subsequent rounds fired. But I also think that the Tz9b is a rather subjective form of range finding…

Granted it is better than the US method of fire and adjust, but Ziess aint a coincidence or stereoscopic system in which a 2,000meter range can be estimated within +/- one meter. On the other hand WWII anti-tank gun crews are often captured in contemporary photos using Coincidence\Stereoscopic type range finders (or maybe I’m thinking of Flak 88 gun crews). Anyway the point being that these ATG folks have a relatively accurate tool by which to establish range, and from the digging I’ve been doing range estimating, and excitable gunners are the two most contributing factors to “misses” in tank on tank or tank on ATG encounters.

"Leibstandarte Bowling Team" ha ha. As far as I've been able to find German Panther and Tiger tank crews HAD coincidence type rangefinders IN ADDITION to the indicators in the gunners sight. Early on one similar to the ones used by the flak crews, later on the purpose made TZR1. They were working on the stereoscopic Em.1.6m R(Panzer) late in the war which made it into production but not field use.

In addition it is easy for a gun crew to place their spotter outside the zone of dust and flash from firing (and the plume of smokeless powder ) in order to observe fall of shot or a rounds tracer element.

This rangefinder (TZR1) was made to view from a point over 3 feet above the tank commanders cupola, especially to see over the flash and dust. I would think there would be an advantage to viewing from so high a location, compared to on the ground beside an anti tank gun. On a Tiger II that would place the observation point almost 14 ft up. There should also be less dust stirring up in front of a tank as the guns muzzle is also higher above the ground.

Just thinkin', I suppose that is why the Tigers and Panthers had the big muzzle brakes and the 88 anti tank guns did not.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message has been edited by machineman (edited 11-11-2000).]

[Jeff Duquette]

Guess the range

[aka_tom_w]

VEry hard to guess that range

Nice screen shot

What game was that?

some modern Gulf War tank sim?

(Probably only runs on a PC which is

why I don't know about it)

-tom w

[Silver Stars]

Very off topic reply to Very Off Question

It's a screen shot from the opening movie for Talonsoft's West Front (Which looked NOTHING like that while playing the actual game).maybe it will look like that in Combat Mission 15 for the Cray 2<wink>

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

"From the Mountains of the Moon, Down the Valley of the Shadow, Ride Boldly Ride", the Shade replied, "If you seek for El Dorado."

[Jeff Duquette]

silver:

very good...you win a cookie.

machineman:

I am aware of your contention on this…but I think we will have to agree to disagree on the practicality of Tiger or Panther TC’s employing large hand held rangefinders during a tank battle. These things are typically a meter plus long (An Em.R.1.5m has a base over 5 feet long) and would be useless once the vehicle was buttoned up. It however, would rapidly become a nuisance flopping about the turret and getting under the TC and Loader’s feet. Furthermore if you review Jentz it appears that the concept was never really realized due to: very specialized lengthy training requirements as well as the need to identify tank crewmen with “stereoscopic vision” to operate the thing (page 54, Tiger I & II Combat Tactics).

In addition, I reckon that if the use of large hand held coincidence or stereoscopic range finders were being widely used we would have been able to dig up a couple photos showing Tiger or Panther TC’s employing these instruments. Numerous shots of TC’s holding bino’s but no range finders. On the other hand it is relatively easy to find photo’s of German Flak 88 crews employing stereoscopic range finders (Em.R.1.5m).

Now the TZR1 is kinda throwin me for a loop (do you mean a TSR1?). Again photo examination has turned up nil on my part showing any Tigers or Panthers with a 3 foot high appendage sticking up from the top of the turret. Perhaps someone in the viewing audience can help us out here. Are you sure the TZR1 or TSR1 was not a simple periscope, as I can’t find a listing of this type of range finder in the “German Army Handbook”. Again perhaps someone in the viewing audience has some additional insight on this thing.

[Guest machineman]

Hey Jeff, I could well be wrong. I'm mostly going out of one book- Michael Green's Tiger Tanks, and if it's all horsefeathers, I'm stuck. I did check around again as much as I could though to back it up.

I am aware of your contention on this…but I think we will have to agree to disagree on the practicality of Tiger or Panther TC’s employing large hand held rangefinders during a tank battle. These things are typically a meter plus long (An Em.R.1.5m has a base over 5 feet long) and would be useless once the vehicle was buttoned up. It however, would rapidly become a nuisance flopping about the turret and getting under the TC and Loader’s feet.

Green states that the hand held rangefinders were only used in "Early production Tiger I tanks with the drum pattern cupola" as it "did not have the bracket to mount the TZR1".

Another source was quoting early '43 only. So what they are saying is that the time these were used was quite limited, no doubt for the exact reasons you give. I don't have any info on rangefinder use on Panthers, Nashorns, Jagdpanthers, etc. One would thing Nashorns would have something like this for sure.

Furthermore if you review Jentz it appears that the concept was never really realized due to: very specialized lengthy training requirements as well as the need to identify tank crewmen with “stereoscopic vision” to operate the thing (page 54, Tiger I & II Combat Tactics).

What exactly they are quoting on there? The TZR1 mentioned that was a 'bolt on' for the Tigers is a coincidence rangefinder, not a stereoscopic one. Green again states "It is also relatively easy to train competent operators".

He goes on to note that there WERE problems with the binocular TZF 9b gunsights fitted to Tiger I's and II's with resulted in conversion to monocular TZF 9d's.

There is also a fairly long extract from a US Army report on the proposed successor to the TZR1, the Em1.6m.R(Panzer) which was stereoscopic, but which never made it into production. BTW, it was interesting reading in the link the other day to US armour development after the war that the US went to stereoscopic rangefinders in their post war tanks and then went back to coincidence type on the M60's, because of operator problems.

In addition, I reckon that if the use of large hand held coincidence or stereoscopic range finders were being widely used we would have been able to dig up a couple photos showing Tiger or Panther TC’s employing these instruments. Numerous shots of TC’s holding bino’s but no range finders. On the other hand it is relatively easy to find photo’s of German Flak 88 crews employing stereoscopic range finders (Em.R.1.5m).

Like I say, it doesn't appear as though they were using the hand held type for very long.

Now the TZR1 is kinda throwin me for a loop (do you mean a TSR1?). Again photo examination has turned up nil on my part showing any Tigers or Panthers with a 3 foot high appendage sticking up from the top of the turret. Perhaps someone in the viewing audience can help us out here. Are you sure the TZR1 or TSR1 was not a simple periscope, as I can’t find a listing of this type of range finder in the “German Army Handbook”.

I've looked at all my photos and havn't seen any either. It still doesn't mean they were not used, maybe just it did not make a particularly heroic picture? Up high in the turret staring out with binoculars does look a lot more 'cool'. About the TZR1 vs TSR1, I did see a reference today about the TSR1 browsing in the bookstore on Panthers, but it stated specifically it was a viewing periscope, not a rangefinder. I also saw another reference to the TZR1 in a different book on Tigers, specifically stating it was a built-in coincidence type rangefinder.

I also found a beautiful cutaway line drawing of a Tiger I, supposedly from British wartime studies, showing BOTH a mounting for a scissors periscope, and a mounting for a rangefinder. How do you manage to post your photos so easily?

Again perhaps someone in the viewing audience has some additional insight on this thing.

That would be nice. There was the same problem on the optics-only thread, a lack of definitive evidence. There has to be more out there somewhere. (play X-files music...)

Paul Jungnitsch

[This message has been edited by machineman (edited 11-13-2000).]

[Paul Lakowski]

The late war German tanks ['44 on] employed gun sights with two magnifications and apparently this was used to assist in zeroing in on the range measurement.Has anyone heard of this and can elaborate on what they did and how it helped?

[Guest machineman]

Being as I kind of have this at hand at the moment...Tiger I had binocular TZF 9b sight with single 2.5X magnification, Tiger II (and late production Tiger I) had TZF 9d monocular with 3X and 6X magnification. All it states here is that the 3X was used for close ranges and the 6X for farther.

Hmm, this is interesting:

"Because of the better overall view from the top of the tank, target acquisition and intial range determination is normally the responsibility of the vehicle commander, although he can be assisted by other crew members."

That extra 4 to 5 feet in height over the gunners scope probably makes a big difference in what you can see.

Another that may be of interest, from Sgt. George A. Barden, (US Army), of the 2nd Armoured Division:

"I took from a German officer a pair of field glasses 10x50, the best glasses I've ever seen. On two occasions, I was able to pick up an antitank position and a mortar postion at a range of about one mile, when those same two targets could not be seen using a pair of G.I. glasses, 7x50."

So the binoculars were 10X and even the hi magnification on the late sights were 6X? The commander could also use the stadiametric sights in those same binoculars, plus the height advantage, plus being out of the smoke and dust faster, plus being able to use two eyes for better depth perception, I'm thinking more and more it was the commander who was doing the long range gunnery over the headset.

When things were close and buttoned up then the gunners sight would be lots magnified, it appears ranging isn't critical up to 1000m with either of the 88's anyway, and the commander could concentrate on picking up targets outside of the gunners relatively narrow field of vision, which is probably why they didn't seem really worried about giving the gunner a periscope.

Ah, just more speculation. Brain kind of ran away there.

[Rother]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

Anyway concerning sights, notice the difrences? German tanks have a way to determine the range & zize of the target, US sights have no range determination ability at all other then makeing a guesstimate and adjusting shotfall accordingly.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Look at the US sight again. You can use the US reticle in almost the exact same way as the German to determine range. It's even quicker since you don't have to adjust the sight for the correct range just elevate the gun to the proper range which you have to do anyway even with the German sight. The US sight is far superior for making that quick first shot.

Rother

[Jeff Duquette]

Machineman:

William Folkestad in “Panzer Jager, Tank Hunter” does mention observing a Nashorn crew employing a hand held Flak type range finder to engage T34’s at a range of 800 to 1200 meters. I think I quoted this story in one of my earlier posts on this thread.

Something else of interest...From: “Seek, Strike, and Destroy, US ARMY Tank Destroyer Doctrine in WWII.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The tank destroyers would even find it difficult to stand on the defensive and ambush attacking German armor, for German tanks rarely attacked blindly or recklessly. An American armored officer reported that "when the German tanks come out, they stay out of range and sit and watch. Then they move a little, stop, and watch some more. They have excellent glasses [binoculars] and they use them carefully. They always seem to make sure of what they are going to do and where they are going before they move… "Major General Orlando Ward, commander of the 1st Armored Division in Tunisia, remarked that advancing German tanks sometimes moved so slowly that it was necessary for the observer to line up the German vehicles against a terrain feature in order to be sure that they were moving at all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Binoculars can be used to determine range. The modern US ARMY M19 includes horizontal and vertical reticles graduated in 10-mil increments. Were the Germans using bino’s equipped with a mil scale in WWII?

I would like to see the cut away of the Tiger with the scissors range finder you are referring to. If you can scan the photo I would be happy to post it for you. Send the image as a *.jpg photo to: jeffduquette@home.com and I will see that it is posted here.

Regarding the Jentz write-up on hand held range finders and the Tiger 1...I will scan the quote in tomorrow and post it in its entirety...if you will do me a favor and post Green's write up on the TZ1R as well as his write-up on hand held optics. Thanks.

Sorry only got through your first post...the wife is already pissed at me for spending too much time on the "DAM COMPUTER". I'm a whipped man

[This message has been edited by Jeff Duquette (edited 11-13-2000).]

[PzKpfw 1]

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

Look at the US sight again. You can use the US reticle in almost the exact same way as the German to determine range. It's even quicker since you don't have to adjust the sight for the correct range just elevate the gun to the proper range which you have to do anyway even with the German sight. The US sight is far superior for making that quick first shot.

Rother<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So Rother, how did the US gunner determine range with the US sight to begin with? US sights wern't granulated with range tick's, their was a mark for 500yrds after that their was no way to calculate range. The granulations in the US sight are for elevation, which means that range had to be determined first & then elevation adjusted accordingly.

Regards, John Waters

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

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 11-13-2000).]

[Rother]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

So Rother, how did the US gunner determine range with the US sight to begin with? US sights wern't granulated with range tick's, their was a mark for 500yrds after that their was no way to calculate range. The granulations in the US sight are for elevation, which means that range had to be determined first & then elevation adjusted accordingly.

Regards, John Waters

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Notice the horizontal and verticle lines in the reticle. The horizontals are twice as long as the verticals. All you have to do is determine how long they are in mils. Once you know that it's exactly the same as using the triangles in the German sight to determine range. You can do the same thing with just about any sight reticle. You can even use the front sight post on a rifle or even your hand with your arm outstreched. It's not rocket science.

Rother

[Jeff Duquette]

Its rocket science when it comes to putting steel on steel at 3000 or 4000 meters

MEASUREMENT BY LATERAL DISTANCE

A gunner or TC can use the four-finger method to find distance. He measures the distance from one point to another with the T&E mechanism. He extends his arm toward the target, palm out, elbow locked, one eye closed, and index finger raised. He sights along the edge of the finger, adding extra fingers to fill in the space (the average finger is 30 mils wide). One finger equals 30 mils, two equal 70 mils, three equal 100 mils.

A circle has 6,400 mils. At a distance of 1,000 meters, an object 1 meter wide measures 1 mil. Change mils to meters by multiplying the number of mils times the range (distance) in thousands of meters. Obtain the unknown width or range to an object using a similar method.

The mil relation is; when is the angular width of the object in mils, W is the width of the object in meters, and R is the range or distance in thousands of meters.

To find Width when the known Range is 4,000 meters and the object is 15 wide, multiply (R x ) 4 (range in thousands) times 15 (mils). The answer is 60 (meters), or 4 x 15 = 60 meters.

W = R (in thousands) x

W = 4 x 15

W = 60

(2) To find Range when the known Width in meters (between two bursts or two objects) is 60 and the angular measurement for the same width, when measured with binoculars, is known to be 15 mils, divide (W) 60 (meters) by 15 (mils). The answer is 4 (thousand meters).

(3) To find when the known Width in meters between a reference point and the target is 60 meters and the known Range to the target is 4,000 meters, divide W/R) 60 (meters) by 4 (range in thousands) and the answer is 15 (mils) or 60/4 = 15 mils.

Pretty crude however.

[PzKpfw 1]

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

Notice the horizontal and verticle lines in the reticle. The horizontals are twice as long as the verticals. All you have to do is determine how long they are in mils. Once you know that it's exactly the same as using the triangles in the German sight to determine range. You can do the same thing with just about any sight reticle. You can even use the front sight post on a rifle or even your hand with your arm outstreched. It's not rocket science.

Rother<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes Rother, & all this would be based on crew experience in CM. And it may not be 'rocket science', but one of the main critisisms of US WW2 sights, by US crews was their was 'no way to determine range'.

Now if range determination is as simple as you put it, why were these complaints made? were US gunners inadequately trained? why did the US add range ticks to their later sights after the war? etc. Add that to the fact the German sights just lined up the triangles on target and determined range by target size, this was not a complicated process compared to an US gunner, who had to hope he determined his mils correctly etc, and exactly why the US Army changed sights by Korea.

It's interesting that the US Army states US Korean War mediums, had to fire 3 rounds at a tank at 1500yrds to obtain a 50-50 Probability to hit, compared to the WW2 Sherman 76mm's 13 shots at 1500yrds to obtain an 50-50 Probability to hit in WW2. While the 1947 French tests with the Panther reported the 7.5 cm L/70 was capable of hits at 1400 - 2000m with very little ammo expenditure, as even with SprGr. a hit was attained by the 4th or 5th round.

Jeff et, all Concerning the use of TC observation devices, the French report also states; 'a scissors periscope with large magnification power was affixed to a bracket in the commanders cupola'.

Regards, John Waters

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

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 11-13-2000).]

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Concerning the use of TC observation devices, the French report also states; 'a scissors periscope with large magnification power was affixed to a bracket in the commanders cupola'.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am assuming that the French Test was restricted to the employment of only stock German equipment in the Panther? In other words the scissors periscope was a piece of German equipment?

While digging through some other references I found the following picture. This is from “Villers-Boccage, Through the Lens”, by Daniel Taylor. It’s a great book with numerous contemporary photos of the famous engagement and aftermath. This is a photo of a rather cocky British tanker named Lt. Bill Cotton. North African campaign vet with the "Desert Rats".

Besides the intersting insight this photo gives into this brave fellows character (i.e. Sporting a Luftwaffe flying jacket, a Cross of Iron, the cigarette butt burned down nearly to the guy’s fingers…a “cool TC”) the scissors periscope was apparently German booty liberated by Cotton during the second phase of the Villers-Boccage engagement.

Cotton and his tanks succeeded in spanking a German attack into Villers-Boccage spearheaded by several Tigers and several MkIV’s. Some pay back for Whittman's romp. Not exactly the photo I was hoping for…but perhaps Cotton liberated this periscope from a knocked out MKIV or MKVI.

The caption of the photo reads: “Cotton with more booty collected during the fighting. These pictures were taken to accompany his award of the Military Cross for the fighting around Villers”

[PzKpfw 1]

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

I am assuming that the French Test was restricted to the employment of only stock German equipment in the Panther? In other words the scissors periscope was a piece of German equipment?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes Jeff the scissors was part of the Panther's kit in the report and had its own mounting bracket.

Regards, John Waters

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

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[Jeff Duquette]

Jentz, "Tiger I & II Combat Tactics". Pages 54 - 55. I reckon I'm not going to get reciprosity on Green

I have included text before and after Major Leuders disscussion regarding his concerns with rangefinders and training, so that the context of his report is included. Of particular interest is item 3.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Eleven Tigers were reported to be operational on 14 February for the attack on Sidi bou Zid to open Operation "Fruelingswind." The Tigers attacked down the road from the least, the 10.Panzer-Division came in from the north, and the 21 .Panzer-Division circled and came in from the south and southwest. The 3rd Battalion of the 1 st U.S. Armored Regiment lost 44 Sherman tanks out of 50, of which 15 were claimed by schwere Panzer-Abteilung 501. On 15 February, schwere Panzer-Abteilung 501 with 14 operational Tigers was held in reserve during the envelopment of the counterattacking 2nd Battalion of the 1st U.S. Armored Regiment. The Americans lost one Lee and 46 Sherman tanks out of 51, of which only one was penetrated by an 88. No Tigers were lost in the actions from 14 to 22 February.

Directly after the actions at Sidi bou Zid, Major Lueder, commander of schwere Panzer-Abteilung 501, relayed some very open and frank opinions and observations in the following letter dated 16 February 1943:

1. The Entfernungsmesser (rangefinder) Question: Several EM 09 have recently arrived and the bulk of them are still in Italy. Trials have revealed that personnel must first be selected who possess stereoscopic vision, a difficulty that I realized only now. Special equipment is needed for such a test, which is available only at psychological testing stations. During the next few days I will let tests and selection occur at Flakgruppe Tunis using 4-meter rangefinders, because with these larger rangefinders one can at least approximately determine if the personnel grasp the fundamentals. I will then immediately let the chosen personnel begin training, instructed by my anti-aircraft platoon leader. Training must last several weeks, if one wants to achieve reasonable results. These are all suggestions from Flak personnel, who must know what they are talking about. A lot of time-consuming work is necessary be fore experience in the use of the EM 09 on the Tiger can be obtained. The Abteilung is spread out over 250 kilometers in combat or must continuously be ready for combat, which makes bringing the crews together for training very difficult.

On this basis I want to delay delivery of Feldfunksprechern (portable field radio sets) until I know if the rangefinder idea works.

In 6 writes and telegraphs constantly for experience reports with the EM 09. I will be thankful if you would personally pass on the message that this requires time and that we have other things to do than rangefinding. I guarantee that only that which can happen will happen. Planning is necessary to further pursue this whole rangefinder question in training personnel at the Ersatz-Abteilungen. The rangefinder must be used by a crew member of the Panzer, not by a rangefinder squad that will be sent forward "when the need arises. " That must be known already because In 6 has ordered brackets to mount the EM 09 on the Tiger. Advise them how the situation stands here at the front in choosing and training personnel from the Panzer crews with the previously listed difficulties and delays.

2. Including the Tiger-Abteilung in a Panzer-Regiment: As a basic principle, light Panzers belong as part of a Tiger unit. A unit consisting solely of Tigers would not prosper. It constantly needs light Panzers for maintaining contact with other units, reconnaissance, and other similar duties (i.e., scouting, guarding, bringing repair parts or retrieving wounded under fire) that you can't use Tigers for, totally apart from the need to continuously guard the Tiger. Including the Tiger-Abteilung in a Panzer-Division is concurred with; also, incorporation in a Panzer-Regiment appears possible, with the reservation that the escorting light Panzers remain with the Tiger-Abteilung.

3. Tank Battles at Long Ranges: The old difference between us and the opponent — He would rather shoot; we would rather charge. If 15 enemy tanks advance to 2000 meters range or greater and commence firing from selected positions, it is an unpleasant situation. It is the same as if four batteries fired directly at us with 15 guns, with the difference being that tanks are harder to destroy than guns. Their high explosive shells are effective against roadwheels and can cause the turret and weapons to jam. With their fabulous shell material the opponent can also achieve direct hits. What do we do in such a situation? A charge is no good, so we try to outflank them. But very often the terrain doesn't play along. The result is you bite your tongue from rage over the effective fire from the enemy.

We could do exactly the same thing with the long 7.5 cm or the 8.8 cm tank guns and achieve the same result, if we engaged 15 enemy tanks with ten long 7.5 cm or 8.8 cm guns, I am convinced that the opponent would yield sooner than us. But we don't do it, because to us it's a stupid idea and we must conserve ammunition.

If the artillery wants to strike with large caliber high explosive shells at a range of 4000 m, other than by chance they won't destroy any tanks but only expend their ammunition supply. Using the total stockpile, the rare occurrence will grow to "probable destruction." But that is all theory. I don't know any of our own artillery that have enough ammunition. Only the enemy has enough.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Guest machineman]

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

I reckon I'm not going to get reciprosity on Green <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Coming right up, actually. The problem with going back to school is that one has to work until 10.00. The working world was much easier (to my surprise).