Quality of T34/B sights.

[kipanderson]

T34/B had high quality sights.

Hi,

Yesterday I took the day off and went down to the Bovington Tank Museum in order to take a look around their archives. This is something I have done before, but not for some years, and what I was after was all the technical reports they have on Soviet WW2 tanks. The reports cover many types of Soviet WW2 AFVs but most are based on a T34/B and KV1 that were sent to the British in 1942 as a thank you for all the supplies we were sending them. The greater number of reports are on the T34/B. Some are very short, only a few pages having survived, some are very long and detailed. Chemical analysis of armour, diesel fuel, lubricants, test firings of HE shells against different targets, everything and anything you can thing of is covered. (Strangely, the one thing I was most keen to see was not there, test firing of AP shells, must have been done, only in separate report.) Anyway, I will cut the waffle and get to the main subject of this post.

The longest and most detailed report, “A Report on the Investigation of a T34” School of Tank Technology, in turn had a long section on the sights. In the conclusion to the section on sights the final paragraph starts with this sentence,

“Telescope and periscope are of very fine construction and appear far superior to most of the equipment and components on the tank.”

Very different from that which is normally assumed about Soviet sights.

There are two reasons why this was not a surprise to me, one trivial one not so trivial.

The trivial reason is that this fits with my personal experience of T34 sights. I have looked through the site of a T34/85 model44 and found the sight to be of stunning quality. Those that have looked through a high quality telescopic sight at dusk/in poor light will understand what I mean when I say that the landscape through the sight was “sharper, brighter and lighter” than that with the naked eye. Not just enlarged. I call this a “trivial” reason because there is no certainty that the sight I was looking through was the same as those used in WW2. As the Soviets would have said, it may have been a “modernised” sight I was looking through. However, it may have been a sight of the same kind used in the war, it may even have been produced during the war. It cannot be totally disregarded.

The second reason why the conclusion of the report on the T34/B was not a surprise to me is that in another very extensive, 1947 document I have covering all Soviet ground equipment of WW2, there is no comment on the low quality of Soviet sights. I agree that a “negative proves nothing”. However, if you could see this 1947 document, both its length and nature, you too would find it “strange” that the low quality of Soviet sights was not mentioned, assuming that they were in fact of low quality. The 1947 document is full of comments on the quality, or lack of quality, of each type of equipment it reviews.

When all three of the above are taken together, the report on the T34/B, my experience of T34 sights and the lack of any adverse comment in the 1947 document a case begins to build for doubting if reports of low quality Soviet sights are correct or just myth.

In all I must have seen about half a dozen reports with sections on Soviet sights and have never seen an adverse comment on their quality. It is also worth noting that the T34/B and KV1 in question will have been produced at the time when the Soviets were under greatest “production stress”, just after the great post 1941 shift in production. Yet still the sights and specifically picked out for praise.

Before Steve and Charles launch themselves into coding for low quality Soviet sights I feel they should take another look at what evidence there is for this view.

I know Steve is always very careful about trying to avoid falling for any of the standard Eastern Front myths, but in the case of Soviet sights he also needs to be careful.

Certainly “some” Soviet AFVs, even of 1942 war production, had high quality sights. Maybe all of them, I still have seen on evidence of low quality sights, and as you can tell, I have looked in the places where one would expect to find such evidence if they were of low quality.

All the best,

Kip.

[PzKpfw 1]

Kyp, theirs an article in a Russian publication on the BT-5 & BT-7 that reports the 'poor' quality of their sites, this concerned late 1942 early 1943. It also goes on to relate that it wasn't rectified until they began copying the British MK4 sight.

Anyway I have also seen the high quality remarks in the T-34 report as well, it just never seemed to hold up when compareing the remarks from Soviet reports above as well as Soviet tank AA reports on inability to engage at LR because of optical problems etc & German remarks on the captured optics as well.

Either way Kyp I think you picked a big mountian to scale . I also dont believe we will see any optical difrences in CM2 anyway because no one can quantify that their was any inherent advantages or disadvantages 1n one nations optics over another Ie, we went down that road in CM.

Regards, John Waters

[Panzer Leader]

This doesn't answer the question about the T-34's optics, but here is what Steve said on the subject:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The only room for improvement from 1.12, that we feel is necessary, is optics. On the Western Front the quality of optics and aiming systems were about equal all things considered. This is not necessarily the case on the Eastern Front. We plan on coming up with a scientific method for augmenting the current aiming equations with an optics factor. We are NOT just going to make the Germans hit better than the Soviets in all conditions for all vehicles. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, John, it looks like there WILL be a difference!

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader:

So, John, it looks like there WILL be a difference!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm familiar with it PL, I just don't believe it will occur, they can not quantify it, they could not in CM either, as I said we have been down this optics 'quality' road before & neither side could prove one sides optics were better or worse to any degree.

Kip's post is an perfect example of the differing opinions on the subject, Ie, the Allied reports on the T-34-76 & KV1 etc all state the optics were good or even better then the Allied optics, yet Soviet & German reports both state Soviet optics were below the quality of German optics.

Ie, the Soviet report on the Sherman states both the M4A2 Sherman 75 & 76 recieved thru Lend Lease had better optics then the 1943 - 1944 T-34 etc.

The only way to quantify any of this would realy be access to detailed reports on testing of all these devices etc, or testing said devices now, which isn't going to happen 60 yrs down the road.

Basicly the optics question in Wargameing has been the decided by the programers own feelings on the issue Ie, most have given the Germans an optical advantage with US UK 2nd & USSR 3rd in the feild.

Regards, John Waters

[ 06-13-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[kipanderson]

John, hi,

It is interesting what you say. That it is the general rule that British and American inspections of Soviet sights result in the conclusion that they were OK. In some cases even good quality. This does lead me to the belief that Soviet sights, certainly on wartime production models, are likely to have been “good enough”. This remains me of the quote from the famous Soviet Admiral; he cannot have been that famous because I have forgotten his name, but anyway, there is a quote from a famous Soviet Admiral that

“Perfect is the enemy of good enough.” Soviet sights look like a case in point.

All of the above in turn remains me of something Steve has implied by some of his comments, if I understood them correctly.

When dealing with the question of the range of tank fire there is a general rule of thumb, which still applies today. That is that the “extreme, outer-limit of the practical range” of a tank gun can be taken as two seconds of flight time measured at muzzle velocity. To take a modern example, this means that a long-rod penetrator fired from a NATO 120mm gun will have an extreme, outer-limit range of around 3200m against tank targets. If you assume that the average WW2 tank gun, AT gun, had a muzzle velocity of between 750m per second and 800m per second, and many did fall within this category, then one way to think of long range is this. Anything over 900m is long range, anything over 1200m is very long range, and anything over 1500m is “getting silly”. Given these sort of ranges optics need not be of that high quality. A tank size target, if not obscured by forests and buildings, an easily be spotted at 1000m, but not at 2000m. If in the area in which you live you attempt to spot a small lorry or large van at 1000m you will have no problem. Clearly wartime fear and confusion make it more difficult, but the importance of optics at WW2 ranges can be overstated. I my view, which I admit may not be worth too much. I have never fired a tank gun.

All the best,

Kip.

[Ex Bellator]

Interesting stuff, I'm no expert on this (or any other!) subject so I'm just watching the thread unfold.

However I'd also like to ask a related question - what about the 'minor' nation optics on their own tanks ie. Italian, Hungarian etc? I would guess these would be worse than all others? I know that in the early war the Italians had omitted to waterproof the optics on their battleships :eek: so I don't hold much hope out for their tanks.

I also think the optics question might get too complicated to model but if anyone can do it BTS can.

[Slapdragon]

I have found non technical passages by German authors that the early war Soviet tanks (T-28 et al) did have inferior weapon sights, and certain the US Army experience with the T-34/85 in Korea was that it sighting, control, turret interior, and communications was inferior to the E8 still in US service, a fact which is partially borne out by green US tankers killing a good number of T34s driven by experienced Korean crews in 1950.

There is also mention in a German memoir (by Halder) complaining that German sights, while superior to Russian sights, froze up and had frost bloom problems at relatively high temperatures, while Soviet sights seemed impervious to cold weather. Again, this is not technical and somewhat in keeping with urban legends about the prowess of Soviet winter fighting.

Still, there may be a way to figure optics scientifically and arrive at a rough number for use in assigning advantages in the game. In CM:BO, you ran into the problem that German optics were at most only marginally better than US. Like many factors, their importance was blown way out of kilter which what could be proven was a true affect. In CM:BB, you can possibly find evidence of a market difference in field conditions. If not, then you are no worse off assume parity, only less accurate to life.

[Dan Robertson]

Kip I think one of the advantages of the German sight was the stadometric ranging ability, and the fact that it was marked up to these very high ranges.

Looking at sight pictures for the 17 pdr it had only a set of sighting bars for different ranges.

Where as the Germans could dail in the range more accuratly.

What made a great difference was the German muzzle break and smokeless powder enabled the German gunner to more accurately track their rounds. Where as guns like the 17pdr produced so much smoke the gunner couldn't track his round. I would suspect that this is true with tanks like the IS II.

Also modern tanks have a longer range than 3200m, that would be a limit for moving targets. The major range problem kicks in at around 4500-5500 meters rangee when the laser dot is bigger than the enemy tank so you get overspill and multiply ranges.

[offtaskagain]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dan Robertson:

Kip I think one of the advantages of the German sight was the stadometric ranging ability, and the fact that it was marked up to these very high ranges.

Looking at sight pictures for the 17 pdr it had only a set of sighting bars for different ranges.

Where as the Germans could dail in the range more accuratly.

What made a great difference was the German muzzle break and smokeless powder enabled the German gunner to more accurately track their rounds. Where as guns like the 17pdr produced so much smoke the gunner couldn't track his round. I would suspect that this is true with tanks like the IS II.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't remember my sources but a couple of books I've read said that German tanks were usually able to get a hit by the second shot, if not the third. Of course thats probably out to 1000-1500 meters. Another one said veteran Panther crews claimed a 90% hit rate out to 1000m.

[Andrew H.]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dan Robertson:

Kip I think one of the advantages of the German sight was the stadometric ranging ability, and the fact that it was marked up to these very high ranges.

Looking at sight pictures for the 17 pdr it had only a set of sighting bars for different ranges.

Where as the Germans could dail in the range more accuratly.

What made a great difference was the German muzzle break and smokeless powder enabled the German gunner to more accurately track their rounds. Where as guns like the 17pdr produced so much smoke the gunner couldn't track his round. I would suspect that this is true with tanks like the IS II.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, most of the reports that you read about US troops being impressed with German optics deal with the fact that that things seem to be clearer and brighter; I don't recall reading any reports on optics that specifically laud the type of sight used. I've also seen US comments on how smokeless powder made it more difficult to spot German tanks, but I haven't seen any reports on how it made it more difficult for tankers to see where their shot fell. But I don't know that much about British practice; maybe problems were more severe with the Firefly.

On the other hand, if BTS models that, they should also model the difficulty that Tiger crews (and 88 crews, for that matter), would have had because of all the dust thrown in the air from the muzzle blast. There are lots of descriptions of this; sometimes 88 gunners would use oil or water and hose down the area in front of their gun to prevent the dust from rising up.

Most of the advantages the German optics seemed to have was that they used coated optics. This is hugely important in photography, but less important in tanks, except in certain situations. These situations would include:

(1) spotting stationary objects at long distances, especially if they are concealed.

(2) spotting objects at twilight, where the increased light gathering ability of coated optics would allow you to see things you wouldn't otherwise be able to see.

(3) identifying vehicles -- this is easier if the vehicle is not blurred.

These differences don't have much to do with actually hitting the target after you've spotted it. Which is consistent with reports; AFAIK, US tankers never complained about being unable to hit vehicles due to the quality of their sights. Which stands to reason; if there is a tank at 1500m (which is an extreme range for most US WWII tanks, even a modest 3x telescopic sight will make it appear to be at range of 500m, which is plenty good enough for targeting. The fact that coated optics would permit you to, say, read insignia painted on the tank might matter for photography, but wouldn't matter for targeting.

On the other hand, if you don't see a stationary German tank at twilight in a treeline at 900m because of your non-coated optics, it will matter quite a bit. If it sees you.

[gunnergoz]

Something about the Russian sights that I wonder about is the influence of postwar Russian exploitation of the captured East German optics technology that they'd found in their new vassal state at the end of the war.

I suspect that many improvements were made in Russian sights after they'd had an opportunity to reverse-engineer German sights and to apply technical improvements into their existing array of optics.

It might take 5-10 years to see significant benefits from such engineering endeavors and this would help explain the differential we perceive between wartime and post-war Russian optics.

I'm sure that the wartime optics were serviceable and state of the art for the Russians at that time. I'm equally sure that there were quantum leaps made after the war due to this likely infusion of captured technology, manufacturing dies and know-how.

Thus you could have that T-34/44 with one set of sights in '45 and a different set (say after 1950) that replaced the old and that included all the post-war upgrades that significantly improved the weapon effectiveness (especially in low-light conditions).

[TT]

Good points. The world-famous optic company Carl Zeiss was situated in Eastern Germany, more correctly Jena (later renamed Carl Zeiss Jena, while its Western "sister" was called just Zeiss).

In the 1940-45 Germany was undoubtedly the world-leader in optics. In fact, together with Austrian optic company "Swarovski" they still are the best as far as binoculars go, even if some Japanese and (one) US companies comes very close.

I have nearly 30 years of experience with using different binoculars, both very poor, poor, mediocre, good, very good and excellent. In bright daylight the difference between excellent and mediocre optics may not show, but in poor weather/light the difference will often be tremendous, and the difference of course get bigger when the weather/light gets even poorer. At long range this would certainly make quite a difference for German and Allied gunners.

[rexford]

The 2 second rule for "extreme range" sounds as difficult to prove as the impact of superior German optics, and may have even less validity. We have pictures of Stalin tanks penetrated at 2400m by Nashorn, which does what to the 2 second rule?

Many reports credit Tigers with accurate fire at over 2000m, and 2 seconds yields 1560m for 88L56.

With careful bracketing and a stable platform 2000m is no big deal for Panther and Tiger.

If an "average" Panther crew starts with a 25% range estimation error and correctly uses bracketing against a 2400m stationary target (2m high x 2m wide), the following is the theoretical hit % progression:

1st shot: 3%

2nd shot: 13%

3rd shot: 18%

4th shot: 23%

5th shot: 23%

6th shot: 27%

7th shot: 30%

Hitting something at 2400m with a 780 m/s muzzle velocity is far from silly given clear sights, careful attention to bracketing and low scatter at constant aim.

2 seconds at 935 m/s is 1870m for Panther, which is far below the range at which the tank could hit. Reports given to Eisenhower seem to verify that Tigers and Panthers and Tiger II's could hit beyond 2000m.

About T34 sights, German reports in Jentz' Panzertruppen series indicate that T34 could hit panzers and knock them out with amazing accuracy beyond 1200 to 1400m. Stories abound of poor T34 gun alignment and stability (it could be shaken side to side by pushing it), and rubbish sights. Of T34 crews so bad they had to close to 500m to hit anything.

Russian tank capability and accuracy ranges from very poor to unheard of, like the KV-II that knocked out tanks and ATG and 88's with single shots using a low velocity gun.

Regarding American sights, if American sights were not inferior to German under low light conditions (like a continuous overcast that lasts for weeks and months), why did U.S. tankers constantly talk about the superior German sights and their inability to see things well enough? Maybe the inferiority of U.S. sights only showed up when ambient light levels were below a certain threshold.

[Stalin's Organ]

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

Regarding American sights, if American sights were not inferior to German under low light conditions (like a continuous overcast that lasts for weeks and months), why did U.S. tankers constantly talk about the superior German sights and their inability to see things well enough? Maybe the inferiority of U.S. sights only showed up when ambient light levels were below a certain threshold.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Personally I'd be inclined to ignore reports from the front about differences in sight quality. the men involved there aer not qualified to make teh judgement, have no objective means of assessing any difference, and are likely trying to explain how they keep getting hit without seeing the other guy first when there are myriad other more likely explainations - like the Americans are always attacking and so the defender normally gets the first shot regardless of optics!

[aka_tom_w]

for those of you who missed it the first time

here is the Mother of All German Have Superior Optics Threads:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=011342&p=13

-tom w

[kipanderson]

Hi,

I thought I would just add that the “two seconds of flight time at muzzle velocity” is not my judgement, I have never fired a tank gun, it came from one of the Jane’s publications. I subscribe to both the Defence Weekly and International Defence Review, the monthly publication. It was in one of them. It also gave a number of statistics to back it up. Off the top of my head I forget the exact figures but you would be shocked by how much the drift is due to even very gentle side winds after two seconds of flight. There were a number of stats referring to matters such as “ballistic dispersion” all of which started to build up to unnerving levels after two seconds. There is no mistake, the guy from Jane’s considered two seconds flight time at muzzle velocity the extreme outer limit of range.

Of course, in a war you will always get some examples that break these types of rules. Basically it would come down to how many rounds fired would be considered “practical”.

Personally I put a lot of weight on the opinion of the guys at Jane’s and also at the Royal Military College of Science at Shrivenham. However, I know not every one does. To give another example. The text books written by the lecturers at Shrivenham will tell you that the difference in practical firepower between the American M1919A4 and the MG42 are not as great as in CM. It is all to do with heat. But people give different weight to a given piece of evidence.

The same can be said about “reports” from troops. I always tend to think that reports from, say, German troops about hitting a T34 at 2000m will tend to be exaggerated. But I accept some people give them more weight. For a lot of this stuff one would have to set up ones own tests, and that is not going to happen.

The fact that one gets lots of different views is fun.

Greatly looking forward to the Rexford book.

All the best,

Kip.

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Aka Said: for those of you who missed it the first time

here is the Mother of All German Have Superior Optics Threads:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now that was a Thread!

Incidentally I just received a copy of Lorrin Bird’s (aka Rexford) and Robert Livingston's "World War II Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery” manual. Hard-core techno-historical research. I reckon at this point in time it could be considered the definitive work on this fascinating subject. A subject that kept us all so captivated with the old 88mm Accuracy Thread, and the numerous threads on armor penetration, which often arise here at the CM forum. I understand Lorrin and Robert have been approached by Matrix Games for some outside historical consultation on this subject matter relative to their upcoming “Combat Leader” and “Close Assault” WWII Tactical Simulations.

The reference section alone is worth a mint. Numerous contemporary studies on armor penetration, armor plate metallurgy testing, and Ordnance studies\reports from German, British and American archives were employed and all condensed by Robert and Lorrin for your reading pleasure.

[ 06-18-2001: Message edited by: Jeff Duquette ]

[aka_tom_w]

I WANT it

"World War II Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery” manual.

How and where can I get it.

Is Rexford taking orders?

I hope BTS will buy a copy of it

Maybe they can trade a Free Promo copy of CM2 to Rexford for his book?

(Just a Thought)

-tom w

[Jeff Duquette]

AkA Tom: I think they are still setting up the distribution system and working out taxes and international distribution protocal. Rexford can explain this better. I think They will be taking orders soon. I don’t know about BTS, although I understand Robert Livingston provided a great deal of technical information and insight to BTS during the design of CMBO. Although this may be a rumor as I don’t see Robert’s name mentioned in any of CM credits.

========================

Sorry this is going result in some people having to scroll across this page of this thread. This is one of numerous firing tables for the M68 105mm Tank gun. Employed on the M48A5, M60, M60A1 and I think A3 tanks (maybe Paul L. knows that for sure). This is brake down on various characteristics of M833 fin stabilized discarding sabot. One of the columns (with the big arrow pointing at it) is dispersion as a result of a 10 km/hr cross wind. Basically there is little or no lateral dispersion on round out to approx 1500 meters. 0.1 mil lateral after 1500m. Next jump is 0.2 mil at approx 4100 meters.

For the mil challenged: 1mil at 1000 meters equates to 1 meter (standard NATO mil scale of 6400 mil per circle…if it’s a Soviet mil scale does it mean the weapon is subjected to more or less dispersion at 1000 meters? ). 1 mil @ 2000meters equals 2 meters. 1 mil @ 3000 meters equals 3 meters etc. So 0.1 mil @ 1000 meters equates to a constant lateral error of 0.1 meters. Not much relative to the rounds inherent lateral dispersion from purely systematic error.

Assuming a large magnitude cross wind say 30 or 40 km\h gunners would simply adjust fire accordingly during bracketing. Place burst on target…adjust and fire. I could see this being a problem in heavy gusting winds…ala North Africa. But than obscuration from dust as a result of gusting winds would probably be more of a challenge to a gunners accuracy than lateral round dispersion from the gusting wind.

[Jeff Duquette]

jeeze! cant see that to well.

http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=1707683&a=13310082

try my photo album link if your really interested in seeing the firing table.

[ 06-18-2001: Message edited by: Jeff Duquette ]

[rexford]

My comment on the two second rule was based on reports of hits well beyond the extreme range limit.

German Tiger crews expected to hit by third shot at up to 1200m. Yet 1560m would be the extreme limit?

The two second rule is not so simple to apply. 2 pounder AP has 2600 fps muzzle velocity while Tiger 88 has 2558 fps, so 2 pounder AP has longer extreme range?

2 pounder AP loses velocity much faster since it does not have windscreens and is much smaller. This results in a wickedly curved trajectory with increased shot error for a given range estimation error. Plus 2 pounder AP has much greater scatter than Tiger 88.

Add to this fact that 2 pounder AP sights only go up to 1500 yards and round would be more impacted by crosswinds due to slower average velocity to target.

American tankers in Europe reportedly had trouble seeing targets with reduced light, such as overcast conditions, and I imagine they tried German sights under same conditions and saw much more (or better). There are many ways tankers can compare sights without being scientists with degrees.

I take all of this to mean American sights were inferior under specific conditions.

Our book has data on drift and wind effect for a variety of WW II U.S. APCBC rounds. For a constant wind velocity and direction the first shot is impacted, the follow-up shots correct for wind and drift and it may become a non-factor.

I am not trying to discredit two second rule, only show that combat reports exceed the extreme range limit quite often. If extreme range assumes crosswind (how many mph did they use), did they base estimate on analysis of typical wind velocities and directions.

I work as an airport engineer and planner and have access to wind data for all major airports in U.S. as well as New York State. Calm winds are considered as 4 mph or less, and most airports have about 25% calms (going by memory). If tank is firing east to west, a percentage of winds will be facing or coming from behind firer. Appreciable crosswind on round is not always there.

And if wind is blowing at constant speed, follow-up shots correct for wind and drift and mis-aim and other factors. This is how our book addressed drift and wind impacts, mostly a problem on first shot.

Time of day has a big impact on winds, since winds usually start out low during early morning and pick up as day goes by, peaking around 3pm or so (going by memory here).

Winds worst during winter and spring, lowest during summer, in terms of velocity. I wrote an article on this subject, plus reduced visibility conditions which peak just after sunrise for fog and haze (lowest temperatures occur just after sunrise, based on five year statistics).

Not only are summer winds lowest speed, but hot humid air is less dense than dry cold winter air. If everything constant, 10 mph crosswind during summer has less sideways push on projectile than winter wind of same speed.

This is why airplanes take longer to get off runways during summer heat, less dense air means less lift under wings at same speed.

In Albany NY, the hottest temperatures are usually associated with the highest velocity summer winds (from west), which also holds for Newburgh, NY.

But highest velocity winds of year from west and northwest during winter and spring.

[Stalin's Organ]

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

American tankers in Europe reportedly had trouble seeing targets with reduced light, such as overcast conditions, and I imagine they tried German sights under same conditions and saw much more (or better). There are many ways tankers can compare sights without being scientists with degrees.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure there aer, but if they are doing so on different days then how do they normalise the results?

I'd suggest that their perceptions would be seriously clouded by all sorts of things - such as "Tiger/88mm" mentality where every German Tank can knock out ever Allied tank and no allied tanks can knock out anything German. Now we know that this was not true - but then it was the perceived reality.

Short of proper tests (and there do not need to be any cientists involved!) front lien reports of almost anything at all remain highly suspect, and are best treated as urban myth IMO.

Let's take the reports of Tigers KO'ing T34's at 2000m+, for example - I wonder what the circumstances were? Platoon volley fire at a single target? Was the T34 moving or stationary? Was anyone shooting back at the tiger(s)?

While interesting the bald statement of such occurrences as "common" doesn't realy tell us anything. I wonder how many shots were fired at that range that missed???

[PzKpfw 1]

One of the major difrences in German optics compared to US/UK optics was German optics were filtered, which gave the Germans a better sight picture, in inclimate weather, low light conditions, etc. US tanks were later issued a box of filters that were to be inserted manualy & used as needed.

Now German optics also gave a better sight picture as well as clarity an example of this was the 1947 French report on the Panther, it was written by former Sherman crews, who were very familiair with the Sherman & then got to use the Panther, and couldnt say eneogh good about the Panther's optics.

Anyway we have been down this road before I am still of the opinion that the optics issue can never be quantified.

Lorrin brought up a great point on the T-34-76 in that some German tank crews reported that T-34's would sit outside German tank bivouacs at 1200 - 1400ms & pick off the German tank's with impunity because their range was outside the effective range (as in vs the T-34 frontal aspect) of the 5.cm L/42, & 7.5.cm L/24 main guns.

Now this all leads us back to 'quality' of Soviet optics & why the Soviet's felt the M4A2 Sherman's optics were superior to their own T-34-76 & T-34-85 sights etc.

Regards, John Waters

[rexford]

There is just as much reason to give credit to 2000m hits and American beliefs about German sights as there is to ignore it all.

But there are so many reports of hits beyond 2000m by single Nashorn, or a few Tigers, and a single Panther using limited number of shots, that my view is that the extreme range limit is a good attempt to quantify a difficult issue, but may be too pessimistic.

And as I pointed out for 2 pounder AP and Tiger 88, muzzle velocity alone does not determine extreme range with certainty.

If American sights are poor in overcast conditions and U.S. tankers say German sights are better, doesn't this imply that:

A. Americans are smart enough to test both sights under same conditions, which doesn't take a rocket science degree, just some intelligence

B. Americans could compare sights under similar conditions, since overcast was common during time of year

To assume that U.S. tankers would not have ability to figure out how to test things really assumes the worst. I give them credit for being able to figure things out using some logic.

Read the Eisenhower report and see if it sounds like U.S. tankers had enough sense to test the sights for comparison purposes.

[Stalin's Organ]

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

To assume that U.S. tankers would not have ability to figure out how to test things really assumes the worst. I give them credit for being able to figure things out using some logic.

Read the Eisenhower report and see if it sounds like U.S. tankers had enough sense to test the sights for comparison purposes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rex I assume nothing - I simply refuse to believe the best about reports for which there is no verification.

To me it is you who are assuming that the reports mentioned in this thread are good comparisons, and I see no evidence that that is the case.

If there is such information (detailing the reports so the quality of the testing can be assessed) then I'm happy to look at that and reach an appropriaet conclusion.

However lacking such information I suggest that your own assumption that the reports are of good quality is unjustified.