Quality of T34/B sights.

[ASL Veteran]

Dang, Steve lives out where there are dirt roads?? :eek: I didn't know such a thing still existed!!

Optics aside, I am of the opinion that if dispersion, trajectory analysis, and test range data are not included in the basic accuracy 'model' then the accuracy numbers are already being pulled out of your ... ummm ... shorts . I don't necessarily support the opinion that an optics bonus should be given to certain armored vehicles or nationalities, but I can certainly see the POV that would say "if your basic accuracy model is already being pulled out of your shorts, then what difference does it make if you pull one more modifier out of your shorts?" Put me in the Rexford camp of accuracy determination. :cool:

[Battlefront.com]

ASL Vet,

Pavement, in good condition, around here is something rarer than gold

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Optics aside, I am of the opinion that if dispersion, trajectory analysis, and test range data are not included in the basic accuracy 'model' then the accuracy numbers are already being pulled out of your ... ummm ... shorts <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not exactly, since you are thinking about this too narrowly. Of course we don't have such tables and charts in the game. Why not? Because we have equations to generate more reliable and consistant data. In fact, that is what Rexford has spent so much time putting together himself (thanks!). Having tables and charts in the game, which might themselves be flawed (and are sometimes!), is a bad idea. To the best of my knowledge, there is not one line of data like this in CM at all. If you don't have good equations, then it is certainly better than nothing, but it is not the best route to go.

The current accuracy model is almost completely based on the real world physics of the gun system. Meaning, a gun fires as if optics are assumed to be "adequate". It is our strong opinion that optics, while certainly important, were only moderately responsible for getting the shell on target. If the optics were at least "good enough" then the gun would fire fairly true (depending on gun, range, etc of course!). Speed of target aqusition is something that optics do have an impact on, perhaps significant one, but this is seperate from the gun itself. Same is true for observing shotfall and other things like that. So the gun system itself is the most important element in this whole puzle by far.

About the only thing we "fudge" is gunner error, which is of course based on crew Experience, range, and a few other factors. This takes into account a host of "human variables" that no study we know of has documented. So we are left with no option but to fudge. We are confident that our fudging is fair and within the realm of realistic.

The stuff that was documented back in WWII and shortly after, like dispersion patterns, were used by us as a "sanity check". In other words, we looked at the results from the equations and said "do our results appear at odds with these lab results (note, not battlefield results)". With only one or two exceptions, which was the source of many a long thread in the past, our equations and the lab results are not in conflict (that doesn't mean they were the same).

Instead of getting back into that debate, I think it is safe to say when a CM shell goes from A to B on any given gun platform to any given target at any given range it's results are about as accurate as they can be. The one area where there might be room for improvement, at least one that we can try to simulate, is optics. But perhaps we can't even refine the model because the data is just not there. So worse comes to worse, we leave the model as is.

Thanks,

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

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

The current accuracy model is almost completely based on the real world physics of the gun system.

Meaning, a gun fires as if optics are assumed to be "adequate". It is our strong opinion that optics, while certainly important, were only moderately responsible for getting the shell on target. If the optics were at least "good enough" then the gun would fire fairly true (depending on gun, range, etc of course!). Speed of target aqusition is something that optics do have an impact on, perhaps significant one, but this is seperate from the gun itself. Same is true for observing shotfall and other things like that. So the gun system itself is the most important element in this whole puzle by far.

Thanks,

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with this part for SURE!

"Speed of target aqusition is something that optics do have an impact on, perhaps significant one,"

Thats sounds about right to me, and to some still undetermined degree, the Germans in CMBB should be granted some long range spotting and targeting bonus, (especially for the 88 mm).

"Same is true for observing shotfall and other things like that."

This is also relevant in that some optics bonus for sighting and spotting the shot fall in this case should be in the form of a bonus applied to long range shots fired after a first shot miss, suggesting that high quality optics (both binoculars and range finding optics in the gun site its self) will have an impact on the chance to hit of the subsquent rounds fired, this of course suggests that the crew, if they have enough experience, (Say it only applies to Vet and higher crews) will be more accurate on their subsquent shots, with an increased chance to hit percentage modeled.

So Yes.. Target aquisition at long range should be improved with an optics bonus and accuracy of every shot after the first miss at long range should be improved in modeling the optics bonus.

Now of course the BIG question is HOW BIG is the Optics Bonus and exactly which units get it and Why?

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

Dang, Steve lives out where there are dirt roads?? :eek: I didn't know such a thing still existed!!

Optics aside, I am of the opinion that if dispersion, trajectory analysis, and test range data are not included in the basic accuracy 'model' then the accuracy numbers are already being pulled out of your ... ummm ... shorts . I don't necessarily support the opinion that an optics bonus should be given to certain armored vehicles or nationalities, but I can certainly see the POV that would say "if your basic accuracy model is already being pulled out of your shorts, then what difference does it make if you pull one more modifier out of your shorts?" Put me in the Rexford camp of accuracy determination. :cool:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um...

I would like to comment on the crew level experience "fudge factor".

I seems sort of unfair to Steve and Charles to lump all targeting and accuracy statistics into the catch all of "if your basic accuracy model is already being pulled out of your shorts"....

The crew experience "fudge factor" is a much needed and obvious feature in the game.

Its out there for all to see, we can test it and see the difference in the "chance to hit" percentages in the same situation for all 6 crew level experiences. I really don't think it is fair to characterize those six crew experience levels as a " your basic accuracy model is already being pulled out of your shorts"

I understand that for every round fired a complicated math equation which factors in hard data about the historical velocity, accuracy and penetrating power of every main weapon in the game is modeled in the form of an equation or algorythm (as Charles prefers to refer to it), which determines the outcome of EVERY single round fired telling us, if the round hits or does not hit, where it hits if it hits and what the result of that hit or miss is. I think it is now in CMBO v1.12 a VERY fine armour penetration model.

BUT it is modified by a six layerd crew experience level "fudge factor" that shows us that Elite crews can do things faster, better and more accurately than then a conscript crew. I think this works well in the game as it is now.

I think the chance to hit accuracy model in CMBO works very well with the possible exception of how incredibly accurate the some vehicles are while firing on the FAST move across rough open country side. (But I have mentioned this in a previous thread.)

-tom w

[ 06-22-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[ 06-22-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[ASL Veteran]

Tom,

I am not simply referring to the crew experience levels. I am referring to something that both Jeff Duquette (sp?) and I have come to the same conclusion about (oh so many months ago). I will not repeat that conclusion now though since it is a ... sensitive issue. You can check through the old threads if you want to know what I am referring to.

[Spook]

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

Slapdragon:

What is the integral of secant(u)du<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, being a late-comer to this thread (perhaps someone already threw in an answer and I missed it), I'll be a sport, take the bait, and give an answer:

The natural logarithm of the absolute-value sum of secant(u) and tangent(u); PLUS that stupid attached "constant."

Now forgive my middle-aged mental density, but why was it cited?

On an added note, I'd like to thank Steve of BTS for mucking back into optics as a discussion subject. I've enjoyed the depth shown here in the responses by you & others.

[Andreas]

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

Now forgive my middle-aged mental density, but why was it cited?.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was cited because somebody else was incapable of grasping that it is not a math but a statistics problem for BTS. But quoting random equations makes you appear smart I heard. Serves the same purpose as half a Mammoth did for the Neandertals, enhances datability... Wait a sec...

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

Tom,

I am not simply referring to the crew experience levels. I am referring to something that both Jeff Duquette (sp?) and I have come to the same conclusion about (oh so many months ago). I will not repeat that conclusion now though since it is a ... sensitive issue. You can check through the old threads if you want to know what I am referring to.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh..

OK

sorry

I will try to read up on the issue you were refering to, my appologies I thought you were just complaining about the experience level "fudge factor".

I do think I recall reading somewhere that you and Jeff D had a bone to pick with something like that. I will try to look it up.

Would you be refering to this thread:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=014915&p=5

Another Golden Oldie! that was a GOOD one!

Thanks for the polite response post, pointing out my misunderstanding

-tom w

[ 06-22-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Slapdragon]

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

Ok, being a late-comer to this thread (perhaps someone already threw in an answer and I missed it), I'll be a sport, take the bait, and give an answer:

The natural logarithm of the absolute-value sum of secant(u) and tangent(u); PLUS that stupid attached "constant."

Now forgive my middle-aged mental density, but why was it cited?

On an added note, I'd like to thank Steve of BTS for mucking back into optics as a discussion subject. I've enjoyed the depth shown here in the responses by you & others.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sppok,

Since myself, and BTS it seems, like to use statistics to back up anedcedote where possible and when it applies (like to hot modifiers, which are math based) it has tweeked a few people's nerves, this person was trying to get a cheap shot in by checking my ability to do trigonometry. Since the issue is not trig functions but stats (although the trig function he mentioned applies to stats in that figuring the area of the whole is similar in principal to figuring a percentage of variance caused by different factors in a seemingly random event) I mentions stats books that handle integrals and left it as that, since it was a loose loose question aimed at derailing the discussion into a flame war rather than advancing the issue (hense my letting Tom and John know that if the same person started a personal escalation on this issue is was not about them).

The fact is anyone with a basic stats book (the ones that ignore trig and geometry -- you need an advanced book to discuss that) and a basic stats package can crunch data if they have it, and data may be available in the future (John has one line), Most of my comments have revolved around, "we have a reson to suspect German optics are better, lets build and test a model that will allow it to be simulated in the game".

As to optics, I may be in Washington in July, so John, can you get me the cite for that book or reference so I can do a document search in the national archives? Or does anyone live near DC? I will give you some pointers on how to manuever through the nasty endless process of working with governnent documents if only you will spend a day at NARA for me.

[PzKpfw 1]

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

As to optics, I may be in Washington in July, so John, can you get me the cite for that book or reference so I can do a document search in the national archives? Or does anyone live near DC? I will give you some pointers on how to manuever through the nasty endless process of working with governnent documents if only you will spend a day at NARA for me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Slapdragon I wish I could give you a citation on it, for years I have heard that the US Army did an study on German optical devices but no one has provided an title. When I spoke Aberdeen they 'recalled' such a study but could not remeber a title or doc # etc. Just another frustrating aspect in the search.

Regards, John Waters

[Slapdragon]

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

Slapdragon I wish I could give you a citation on it, for years I have heard that the US Army did an study on German optical devices but no one has provided an title. When I spoke Aberdeen they 'recalled' such a study but could not remeber a title or doc # etc. Just another frustrating aspect in the search.

Regards, John Waters<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am doing a library search right now, in case a Carnegie or a Defense Institute Library has a document in its holdings. I cannot tell you the amount of great data that I have been told is "out their" by museums and experts at institutes, only to find there is no extant copy of the document.

[Matthew_Ridgeway]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>ASL Veteran: Optics aside, I am of the opinion that if dispersion, trajectory analysis, and test range data are not included in the basic accuracy 'model' then the accuracy numbers are already being pulled out of your ... ummm ... shorts<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I’d say that is about as succinct a summation of this thread as is possible. Excellent point Veteran.

[Grisha]

When it comes to simulations, physics models are much better than tables. Tables are too limiting, since the data are usually not discrete enough, and the more conditions that need to be accounted for the more tables that are needed. With physics equations this is done away with provided there are variables to account for all significant factors. Equations create a much better curve of results than tables could ever hope to.

That being said, it must also be acknowledged that without data tables it would be extremely difficult to come up with reliable, accurate equations. So, while tables make poor simulations, they are the core foundation of a good simulation, being the 'pattern' or 'imprint' for equations.

So, the only way optics could be placed into this game is if shot data can be found that includes such things as optic_magnification, lighting_factor, multiple_optics, etc. Otherwise, you're doing nothing else but 'fudging' data.

I don't envy BTS this task, and I wish rexford a lot of luck on assisting with this. You're going to need a good shovel. But, I sincerely hope you can find the data needed, because it really would be great to first quantify, then produce a mathematical expression for such a factor as optics wrt shot accuracy. And just sifting through data like that would be a lot of fun IMHO

[ASL Veteran]

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

Oh..

OK

sorry

I will try to read up on the issue you were refering to, my appologies I thought you were just complaining about the experience level "fudge factor".

I do think I recall reading somewhere that you and Jeff D had a bone to pick with something like that. I will try to look it up.

Would you be refering to this thread:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=014915&p=5

Another Golden Oldie! that was a GOOD one!

Thanks for the polite response post, pointing out my misunderstanding

-tom w

[ 06-22-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My goodness, I stand in awe of your superior searchonaut abilities :eek: !!!! Yes, that is precisely what I am referring to - right down to the precise page. Very impressive!! I think it would have taken me several months to dredge that up again (had I been so inclined).

[PzKpfw 1]

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

I am doing a library search right now, in case a Carnegie or a Defense Institute Library has a document in its holdings. I cannot tell you the amount of great data that I have been told is "out their" by museums and experts at institutes, only to find there is no extant copy of the document.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Slap, I will call Aberdeen again ASAP. I just found a note I made last year that the Aberdeen secratary said something to the effect they had a book on optics resideing in the museum. Problem noted was the person she transfered me to did not know anything about the book.

And yes I to have ran into the same thing in this optic search with non existant data that ppl have said exits here or their myself.

Regards, John Waters

[ 06-22-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

My goodness, I stand in awe of your superior searchonaut abilities :eek: !!!! Yes, that is precisely what I am referring to - right down to the precise page. Very impressive!! I think it would have taken me several months to dredge that up again (had I been so inclined).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No big deal really

Just used your name (your number actually) typed in the word "accuracy" and went away for lunch.

No problem at all, came back and there it was in all its glory, that infamous thread and I found your quote and there you have it!

-tom w

[Jeff Duquette]

Not to change the subject, but someone mentioned a training film by the US War Department on the MG-42. I recall seeing bits of this thing several years ago…can’t recall where. Perhaps it was part of something else of the History Channel? Anyone know where a video copy of this thing can be obtained?

Just as another aside; A German Army training film that is worth a look. Real interesting. T34’s, a KV-1, Hafthohlladung, T-mine42 Panzerschreaks, all kinds of interesting little tid-bits on German Army anti-armor close combat. The Video is called “Men Against Tanks”. It's about 20 minutes in length. It also has a 15 minutes training bit on the tail end regarding German Pioneers and pontoon bridge building. You can find it at:

http://ihffilm.com/24.html

Military optics…take a gander at: “Elementary Optics and Applications to Fire Control” gives you some basics.

[Slapdragon]

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

Military optics…take a gander at: “Elementary Optics and Applications to Fire Control” gives you some basics.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can you complete that cite?

[Slapdragon]

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

Slap, I will call Aberdeen again ASAP. I just found a note I made last year that the Aberdeen secratary said something to the effect they had a book on optics resideing in the museum. Problem noted was the person she transfered me to did not know anything about the book.

And yes I to have ran into the same thing in this optic search with non existant data that ppl have said exits here or their myself.

Regards, John Waters

[ 06-22-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you find out, we can share the costs and either order it through NARA or see if we can get it duplicated through FOIA since a military museum is part of the executive branch and its documents are subject to FOIA requests (understanding that we pay freight).

Also, like I said, the book may be extant elseware.

As for the people who think BTS pulls data out of their butts. BTS uses models, not tables. Tables are guides to build models, not substitutions. What most of us here are doing is taking a recognized issue (optical superiority) and distill it into a body of information from which educated guess can be turned into a working model for gaming purposes. Germanboy, John, Tom, Myself, and others are checking and balancing each other, each of us with our strengths and weaknesses, working on this, even when we call each other goathead.

[rexford]

Rereading the Eisenhower counters many of the faults that were supposedly found with the conclusions and methods, and suggests that others should read it again, too.

Most of the discussions are not be tankers, they are OFFICERS, and many of them have considerable armor experience. Some were in armor since the beginnings in Tunisia.

German sights are clearer, allow faster laying onto the target and work better in reduced light. Officers inspected the sights and came to these conclusions, not just "Tiger intimidated" tankers.

The conclusions from the officers, many of whom were probably West Point trained with engineering courses under their belt, are in line with the posts on how Panther optics were better than U.S. (based on French study?).

From my perspective, opinion is opinion but we are talking about experienced officers talking in a rational manner about German advantages in the field. Informed judgement and personal experience is what it appears to be instead of someone's opinion.

Will the "faster laying" result in Germans never missing? No. Will clearer sights result in 50% hit probability on the first try at 3000 meters? No.

At 500m with targets in the open, sight clarity, better sighting with overcast skies and ability to quickly see and lay on a target, are not that big a deal. Sighting advantages will not make up for turret traverse difficulties.

German sighting advantages will show up against difficult to see targets, long range shots and when direct sunlight is minimal.

So we are talking under specific conditions that are not likely to turn most CM battles around (due to range, clear skies and the way things work).

In a shoot out at 2500 meters, Tigers might have a sighting advantage over M4A3's with 76mm guns. Since direct hits on the first shot at unlikely at that range, Tigers will use bracketting and the question then is whether better sight clarity is significant with bracketting (probably helps to see where shots land better, or to pick up the height as they pass target).

So maybe Tigers and Panthers can see misses better and bring the brackets onto the target faster. Worth a few points on the accuracy meter, maybe.

Our analysis of hit probability using bracketting shows less than 5% on first try and up to 30% or so after several shots, better sights might bring round onto target a few shots quicker at 2500m.

How often does that occur in CM?

If German sights have advantages, and many different sources suggest or support the theory, then the next step is how that results in accuracy improvements. Better sights will not improve first shot probability, but may bring bracketting attempts onto the target a little faster.

We should note, when reviewing reports of 2000m to 2500m hits on the first few shots, that Germans may have layed out the approach routes on range cards and had the range estimates down to high accuracy. This is a distinct possibility given the defensive posture of the panzers late in the war.

Acknowledging sight advantages, if one looks fairly at the support, feels advantages existed and judges it will make a difference, would be a nice touch. And would include something that seems to give the panzers an added boost on their long range shots.

If some issue is felt to be important but cannot be precisely computed, or even roughly estimated, we would try to find some way to include it in a reasonable fashion. But couldn't the impact of better sights be roughly estimated based on improvements to bracketing corrections and getting the aim on the target center.

And being able to see ill-defined targets with better clarity and speed.

Sounds like something that can be quantified using order of magnitude estimates.

[Tero]

>AFAIK the Sfz14 could be used from inside

>the Stug. Are you 100% proof-positive that

>he is not talking about it?

I'll look it up.

>I have looked through the prisms of a

>Panzer IIIN in Bovington and was not

>impressed.

And then you of course climbed into the T-34 and.... what was your impression on the viewing prisms on it ?

[Tero]

>This is just an extereme example to

>demonstrate that quality itself doesn't

>necessarily mean much without further

>qualification and quantification. A real

>example here is how "superior" the German

>sights were for determining range. But

>apparently during the winter of 1941/42

>they froze up solid because they were too

>complicated. Meanwhile, the "inferior"

>Soviet optics were working just fine. So

>in this case, as was typical of many German

>mechanical things, they were over-

>engineered.

This is true. Then there are the few instances during the battle of Stalingrad when the T-34's assembeled in the city rode into combat without any sights whatsoever installed. Are you going to model that ?

>If we just gave the Germans an across the

>board bonus, then the T-34 at 60 below zero

>in Scenario X would be at a double

>disadvantage. Not only would the German

>sites be better that the Soviets, they

>woldn't be penalized.

Is that -60º F or C ?

Below -10 - -15ºC the Germans started having problems with the lubricants, fuel and other stuff as well so wouldn't it be better to render the German armour virtually useless (immobile, unable to fire etc) during the winter of 1941-42 to circumvent this snare ?

How ARE the sights related factors modelled now, exactly ?

>So I find the big problem to be relating

>this "quality" to real world aspects of

>gunnery. In some situations the German

>optics might shine brighter, but in another

>situation they might be on a par, and in

>another still at a disadvantage.

Are you going to try to simulate the effects of athmospherics separately or are you going for a package deal that applies in all situations ?

[Andreas]

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

And then you of course climbed into the T-34 and.... what was your impression on the viewing prisms on it ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not allowed to climb into it, unfortunately.

[Slapdragon]

English and metric align at -30 degrees. -60 C is a recorded Russian temperature (and a recorded New Hampshire Temperature in 1927 when Mount Washington suffered that low of a dip) that of course resulted in the death of countless Soviet and German soldiers exposed to it, not just the freezing of equipment, but the -10 C - -30 C of the worst of 1941 was still fought in by both sides.

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Rexford Said: Rereading the Eisenhower counters many of the faults that were supposedly found with the conclusions and methods, and suggests that others should read it again, too.

Most of the discussions are not be tankers, they are OFFICERS, and many of them have considerable armor experience. Some were in armor since the beginnings in Tunisia.

German sights are clearer, allow faster laying onto the target and work better in reduced light. Officers inspected the sights and came to these conclusions, not just "Tiger intimidated" tankers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I came across a full-blown version of this report several months ago. Started searching and inquiring about it after Grisha posted bits of it awhile back here on the CM forum. Excellent bit of history if you can get your mits on it. The report is by Major General Isaac White commander of the 2nd Armored Division, ETO 1945, and is entitled “United States vs. German Equipment” (1945). Rather astounding the number of comments by high-ranking professionals regarding the quality difference between German and American tank optics. Apparently German Binoculars as well as the famous Sf14Z were also vigorously sought by GI Tankers.

“Elementary Optics and Applications to Fire Control” is not a web site. It’s a book. You might try Gov. Printing Office. Author: Chief of Ordnance. It’s not really a metaphysical treatise on optics and fire control. A background in higher mathematics is really kind of a prerequisite to getting much out of this text. I intend no implication here, so please don’t flame me. I just don’t want someone dumping hard earned money into the book thinking they are getting clift notes on military optics. The US Military academies also produce some excellent textbooks on optics. Worth looking into for folks that may be more interested in this subject.

Have a good weekend. I'm headed to the beach! Wo-hooo!!