Quality of T34/B sights.

[Slapdragon]

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

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!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am sorry, a bit of academics. When someone asks for a cite (spelled cite), they are asking for the author, date, name, and publisher of a document (although author date and author title are best).

[ASL Veteran]

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

I am sorry, a bit of academics. When someone asks for a cite (spelled cite), they are asking for the author, date, name, and publisher of a document (although author date and author title are best).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He gave you the author "Chief of Ordnance" and the title "Elementary Optics and Applications Fire Control" :confused: (A great deal of restraint was used in typing this response)

[Slapdragon]

Sorry, I guess I need to repeat it. He thought I mean that it was a web site (read his reply) and that it was a URL I was looking for. I explained nicely that I was using a synonym of "site", "cite", a diminutive of the word "Citation".

The definition of "Site" in the way he thought I was applying it was a web page.

The definition of "cite" in the way I was applying it was as a short form of "citation", which is a formal reference to informational material that allows one person to refer to the same material.

Your restraint is appreciated, pleased reread the passage and realize that no offense was meant, only an attempt to clear up a misunderstanding since the term cite is used often in these discussions and it is useful for us all to be on the same page, so that when someone asks for a cite, they do not get in reply, "it has no web site."

[gunnergoz]

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

snip.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've got a copy but can't get back to you for a couple of days...I'll get you the name of the source, though, be patient.

[opfor6]

As a former tanker with the US army I have read this thread with some interest. While I was stationed in Germany I had the chance to talk to several WWII German tankers. The general substance of these long conversations was the following:

The heavy armor was often employed on the Eastern front in carefully selected sites to offer the best fields of fire. They usually had rather sophisticated standard operating procedures for setting up the site including surveying of the firing arc. Crews were selected to fire at areas based on their skill level. It was not uncommon at all for crews to fire test rounds to get a feel for the drift at various ranges.

When they were not set up in such a deliberate manner their engagement ranges were shortened except for the very "elite" crews that were allowed to try longer shots.

In the attack the heavy tanks enjoyed the fact the Russian guns created such large smoke clouds. THe german gunners could acquire their attackers and fire fairly accurate return fires using short halt fire.

The people I talked to were more of the opinion that the reason they outgunned the Russians in most situations was not because of the material factors but because of the human factors. A good Russian crew was just as dangerous as a good German one and vice versa. The general concensus was the Russian crews were not trained well enough and suffered for it. Veteran Russian tanks crews were fairly rare according to these gentlemen.

They did not mention the sights as being one way or the other except to say that they could see the Russian at lower light levels than the Russians could see them. Leading to nasty early morning situations when the Russians were moving to a dawn attack thinking they were not visible in the gloom. They learned from their mistakes.

They did not like the Russian tanks because of the "primitive" internal layouts and tendancy to have ammo explosions from AP hits. Evidently recovery of damaged tanks was very important and having them explode easily was frowned upon as bad design...

Overall the impression I got was that the average German tanker thought the Russian tanker was not as well trained and attempted to take as much advantage of that fact as possible.

My own experience as an M-1 tanker is that the better the FCS the easier it is to train the gunner/TC to hit the target. FCS is more than the optics. It is the layout of the controls, the stability of the gunmount, the speed of the turret and the drift of the gun after it set on target and fired. The ability to see the fall of the shell and re-engage quickly is crucial. This includes the loading of the gun and shell storage. Everything is inter-related.

[ASL Veteran]

I saw this amusing little passage in "Tank Combat in North Africa" by Jentz:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>On 14 April, the British also captured one of the rare Pz.Kpfw III Ausf Hs (tactical number 1102) belonging to Panzer Regiment 5. But even though they disassembled it for thorough examination, they didn't recognize the significance of the 30mm face-hardened Zusatzpanzerung bolted onto the 30mm face hardened base plates on the hull and superstructure front. Instead of reporting that there were PzKpfw IIIs with frontal hull armor that couldn't be penetrated by the 2 pounder at any range, British intelligence reported that a few Panzers had odd bits of armor bolted or welded to the front. After test firing against a PzKpfw IV, the troops were informed in the Training Memorandum No 2 of October 1941 that "numbers of each type (PzKpfw III and IV) have been knocked out in Libya and Greece in a variety of methods and penetration performances of British weapons is very good indeed ..." and "The myth of German invincibility of material, when submitted to the cold light of engineering fact, makes a very sorry exhibition." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It just struck me as amusing since we are still discussing similar topics even today.

[ASL Veteran]

Here is a passage from “PanzerTruppen Vol 1” regarding the PzKpfw IV and optics:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> On 11 August the Deutsches Afrika Korps reported on the tactical experience with the Pz Kpfw IV with the 7.5 cm KwK L/43 along with suggested improvements:

From the first time it was used, the 7.5 cm KwK40 tank gun with its higher armor penetrating power and accuracy showed that it was superior to all weapons that had previously been mounted in a Panzer. At ranges up to 1500 meters the armor piercing shell penetrates the front of all of the American and British tank types (including the Pilot) that have been used in the African theater of war. Accuracy decreases at ranges exceeding 1500 meters because observation of the target is hampered by the shimmering atmosphere. Lighter tank types have been destroyed at ranges up to 2000 meters when the view was clear.

(snip)

It is usually incorrect to fire more than a few rounds from one position. The muzzle flash and the especially large dust cloud very quickly draw concentrated fire from the opponent’s artillery.

The PzKpfw IV Spezial should not be used as a command vehicle. However, it should be outfitted with both transmitting and receiving radio sets.

As long as the PzKpfw IV Spezial is only available in small numbers, during combat it is necessary to resupply them with ammunition brought to them in armored vehicles. The divisions are testing the possibility of delivering ammunition by using armored carriers, armored halftracks or other armored vehicles.

It is difficult to observe fire due to the muzzle flash and dust, especially in the desert.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It goes on to describe the need for softer springs, a travel lock, and ammunition racks on the turret floor among other things. Incidentally the ‘Pilot’ is what the Germans called the Grant since they captured a picture of it with the word ‘Pilot’ stamped across it – meaning pilot model. At least, that's what Jentz says

[Username]

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

I always thought that -40 is the same for Farhenheit and Celcius?

Can you Cite an equation slappy?

F=C*(9/5)+32?

C=-40 then (-40)*9/5= -72 and -72 +32= -40 F

Its really a good example for an iterative technique problem. If you take the equation and just plug in a guess and then take the answer (F) and plug that back into the C, you will iterate to the common answer of -40.

Lewis

Lewis

[Slapdragon]

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

I always thought that -40 is the same for Farhenheit and Celcius?

Can you Cite an equation slappy?

F=C*(9/5)+32?

C=-40 then (-40)*9/5= -72 and -72 +32= -40 F

Its really a good example for an iterative technique problem. If you take the equation and just plug in a guess and then take the answer (F) and plug that back into the C, you will iterate to the common answer of -40.

Lewis

Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are correct Lewis, my wife is Brazillian, so I never use English system anymore except for perhaps driving, but I never have had to think in metric for cold temperatures. Brazil rarely goes down to -40.

[Username]

http://ebiz.netopia.com/aolnstore/displayroom/category.nhtml?catuid=10030

Lets go shopping! Funny that the russians used alot of german designs, etc post war.

[PzKpfw 1]

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

Lets go shopping! Funny that the russians used alot of german designs, etc post war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heh I like this quote Lewis:

Built like a tank, these are practically identical to the 8x30 mil-spec binocs produced by Germany's Carl Zeiss-Jena

I would hope so they captured the plant, their oughta be a discount .....

Regards, John Waters

[ 06-23-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Username]

<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.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All fudging aside, I am not sure if Steve means the following by what he is saying:

"The gun system itself is the most important part of this whole puzzle by far."

It can actually be argued that the elevation and traverse resolution (fractions of degrees that can be REPEATABLY cranked in) have as great a part of this issue as anything else. It actually effects low and high velocity weapons. It is somewhat forgiving for high velocity weapons at shorter ranges though. If a AFV had a crappy elevation system, then the optics take on a greater role. The shot has to be observed so that the correction can be dialed in. If the loop cant be closed, then its just a crap shoot every time. Slop (or backlash) in gears is a major concern as is gear ratios, etc.

I consider a gun system as follows:

1. Tube

2. Platform

3. Elevation/Traverse

4. Optics

The platform (trailing legs/gun mount/wheels) or vehicle mass/mounting has a big effect on repeatability also. If the gun does not return to a previous state/angle, then closing the loop is again inhibited.

Personally, I think AFV mounted weapons have an edge. Theys should be more stable mounts and the commanders addional optics help also.

Too many civvies focus on the tube. Its big and long and excites them. Muzzle velocitys are impressive and easily understood.

But gun systems have to be taken as a whole and the optics are part of the package. The gunner makes all the difference in the world and fudging should focus on him mostly.

Lewis

[ 06-23-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

[Skipper]

Soviet infantry and artillery officers preferred trophy Zeiss binoculars to the standard issue ones. That's a hard fact.

OTOH, I don't think that the difference in optics quality has anything to do with firing accuracy. If you can see a target in crosshairs, it doesn't matter after that. Optics quality does play a role in the spotting abilities.

In reallife a tank position was much more important than optics. Ie, a tank sitting in defensive position would always see the other guy earlier.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

OTOH, I don't think that the difference in optics quality has anything to do with firing accuracy. If you can see a target in crosshairs, it doesn't matter after that. Optics quality does play a role in the spotting abilities.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think there is a lot of truth in this, however, I don't agree 100%. The ability to see shot fall clearly for bracketing cannot be forgotten. In some conditions, such as dusk/dawn with the target tank silhouetted against the sky for example, being able to see the tank would not guarantee being able to see shot fall. The ability of the sight to capture ambient light would be important if the first shot missed.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In reallife a tank position was much more important than optics. Ie, a tank sitting in defensive position would always see the other guy earlier.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very true, and I wish something would be done to the game to make motionless vehicles sitting in trees not so easy to spot as they are now.

[ASL Veteran]

Here are some tidbits from “Panzertruppen Vol 2”

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> In response to the question on the basis of their success in combating tanks during the winter battle around Kharkov, on 3 April 1943 Infanterie-Division “Grossdeutschland” reported:

(sniperoo)

3. Degradation of the Russian armor steel was not noticeable. However, the armor steel is darker and finished rougher. The tanks reveal that they were produced in a short time, because there is no evidence of any close tolerance work. The turret of the T34 is not made from a single piece; instead it is assembled from numerous pieces. In many T34 tanks the armor walls were created from pieces of 1 cm thick steel with 6cm filling of cast iron or other material and then a second piece of 1 cm thick steel.

(snip)

5. (snip) Our own Panzerkopfgranate are exceptionally effective and amazingly accurate. However, to the contrary, due to its large dispersion the HL/B Granaten (shaped charge shells) is usable at a maximum range of 500 meters. If a hit is obtained at long range by expenditure of a high number of rounds, the effect of the HL/B Granate is good. However, the troops have no faith in the HL/B Granate. It is desired that the supply of Panzer-Kopfgranaten be increased.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I included point 3 since I figured that was stuff Rex might like. More stuff, this time about the Tiger:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The 13.(Tiger) Kompanie/Panzer Regiment Grossdeutschland reported on their experience in employing PzKpfw VI (Tiger) from 7 to 19 March 1943 in the area of Poltawa-Belgorad:

(gigantic snip)

During a scouting patrol two Tigers encountered about 20 Russian tanks to their front, while additional Russian tanks attacked from behind. A battle developed in which the armor and weapons of the Tiger were extraordinarily successful. Both Tigers were hit (mainly by 7.62 cm armor piercing shells) 10 and more times at ranges from 500 to 1000 meters. The armor held up all round. Not a single round penetrated through the armor. Also hits in the running gear, in which the suspension arms were torn away, did not immobilize the Tiger. While 7.62 cm anti tank shells continuously struck outside on the armor, on the inside, undisturbed, the commander, gunner, and loader selected targets, aimed, and fired. The thin tendrils of smoke coming from the fuming crinkling paint where the armor had been hit, were sucked in by the ventilator. The end result was 10 enemy tanks knocked out by two Tigers within 15 minutes.

First round hits were usually achieved with the 8.8cm KwK gun at ranges between 600 and 1000 meters, at these ranges, the Panzer Granate absolutely penetrated through the frontal armor of T34 tanks. After penetrating through the frontal armor, usually the Panzer Granate still destroyed the engine at the rear of the tank. In very few cases could the T34 be set on fire when fired at from the front. Shots from the same range hitting the side of the hull toward the rear or the rear of the tank resulted in 80 percent of the cases in the fuel exploding. (snip)

The 8.8 cm KwK gun proved to be a dependable and effective weapon. No problems or breakdowns occurred in the electrical firing circuit. Sprengrenaten were fired at a moving artillery column at a range of 5000 meters. A direct hit was achieved with the third round. Horses and men immediately lay in the snow. With Panzer Kopfgranaten, penetrating hits were scored on T34 tanks with minimal ammunition expenditure at ranges of 1500 meters and longer.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are some passages in volume one that deal with T34 accuracy which I may post later.

[Tero]

>Not allowed to climb into it, unfortunately.

I thought as much.

I looked up the translation and it means most definitely also the viewing prisms.

I also found one interesting remark concerning the viewing prisms. Apparently the Finnish combat experiences during the summer of -44 showed that the cellophane protective cover sheets should be taken off the viewing prisms to enhance visibility. A directive was given in early July -44 to alert all crews of this fact.

I never knew there were any cellophane protective sheets on the prisms.

Can you verify they were used ? Or were they just to protect the prisms during transit or in storage. I would think that a detail like removing a protective cover after install would not go unnoticed during training. IF it was in the procedure that is.

[Tero]

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

I always thought that -40 is the same for Farhenheit and Celcius?

Can you Cite an equation slappy?

F=C*(9/5)+32?

C=-40 then (-40)*9/5= -72 and -72 +32= -40 F

Its really a good example for an iterative technique problem. If you take the equation and just plug in a guess and then take the answer (F) and plug that back into the C, you will iterate to the common answer of -40.

Lewis

Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

-40F is -8C. Right ?

I hear a similar millimeter/inch conversion problem was the reason an American copy of the MG-42 (M-60 ?) did not get finished before the end of the war.

[Tero]

>The platform (trailing legs/gun

>mount/wheels) or vehicle mass/mounting has

>a big effect on repeatability also. If the

>gun does not return to a previous

>state/angle, then closing the loop is again

>inhibited.

That is why the Germans disliked the 75mm PAK made by mating the French 75 gun with a PAK 38 undercarriage. When firing AP shots the recoil was so great it would even brake the undercarriage. They called it the Mule. In Finnish use the use of AP shot was not encouraged as the HEAT round was only marginally poorer while the recoil was far less violent.

>Personally, I think AFV mounted weapons

>have an edge.

IRL it is far easier to conceal a non-AFV mounted gun. That is not just modelled in CM properly as it is.

>Theys should be more stable mounts and the

>commanders addional optics help also.

Agree with the commander spotting, but I'd say that would be because of the higher position of the commander (generally) in relation to the gunners view.

>Too many civvies focus on the tube. Its

>big and long and excites them. Muzzle

>velocitys are impressive and easily

>understood.

Try telling them size does not matter in every case.

>But gun systems have to be taken as a whole

>and the optics are part of the package.

>The gunner makes all the difference in the

>world and fudging should focus on him

>mostly.

Not always. A newbie gunner with great optics CAN perform better than an old hand with crappy optics. It is just a matter of how crappy the optics are compared to the great optics.

[Tero]

>I think there is a lot of truth in this,

>however, I don't agree 100%. The ability to

>see shot fall clearly for bracketing cannot

>be forgotten.

Agreed. But I think that it can be said that below a certain distance the quality does not count as the gunner would KNOW he is going to hit the target no matter what as long as the target is in the sights.

The typical engagement distances for the Finnish tanks during the summer of 1944 were between 15 and 700 meters. I think it can be assumed that at 15 meters the quality of the sights are of no consequence.

>Very true, and I wish something would be

>done to the game to make motionless

>vehicles sitting in trees not so easy to

>spot as they are now.

Better include also the bunkers and pillboxes to that list. At least.

[ASL Veteran]

Here is another fantastic Tiger shot. I would only note at this point that all these really long range shots are being done by the Tiger, and not by ordinary German tanks. Perhaps there is something different about the Tiger tank’s accuracy or optics that give it an edge? Anyway, here it is:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> On 17 December 1942, Major Lueder also wrote the following report on the effectiveness of enemy heavy weapons and the usefulness of their own heavy weapons:

(snip)

The 8.8 cm KwK gun is very accurate. Up to now, the Tiger has fired only at the M3 (General Lee) at ranges of 100 to 150 meters. The front and side armor were cleanly penetrated. The M2 (General Stuart) was shot through at all ranges.

We should strive to supply the Tigers solely with PanzerKopfgranaten with tracers for better observation of each shot. An enemy battery was engaged at a range of 7600 meters :eek: by using a gunner’s quadrant. The enemy battery was silenced after six shots were fired at it. It is proposed that the Tiger Kompanie be outfitted with a Feldfunksprecher f (radio set f) to enable forward observers to direct their fire. In addition, the inverted image rangefinders should be exchanged for converging image rangefinders. Large errors result from using the former type in terrain with no discernible landmarks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, and that’s from Panzertruppen Vol 2. And no, the smiley was not in the book, it was added by me

As a bit of a counter point, here is a British report from A Squadron, 2nd Royal Tank Regiment as taken from “Tank Combat in North Africa”

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> On 15 May 1941, A Squadron was advancing from BP40 from cross tracks 518355. 6th Australian Division Cavalry (EPIO) was leading BEAM column when they came under fire from 75mm guns of enemy tanks. A Squadron was ordered by OC 2nd RTR to support BEAM.

On reaching Sidi Suleiman, the Squadron could see a number of German tanks in their line of advance. Most of these retired on the approach of the Squadron, but three became detached and were engaged with the result that one German Mark IV was put out of action. The crew escaped with the other two tanks across the wire. Five or six 2 pounder shells hit the German tank, one of which penetrated the thick turret armor. The speed of the enemy AFVs was considerably greater than the Mk I or Mk IIA Cruiser tanks of A Squadron.

As the two enemy tanks crossed the wire about 15 more enemy tanks were seen approaching from the northwest. These were out of range of the Squadron who had worked south in the previous action to get round the enemy right flank. One tank of No2 Troop had however broken down; the other two tanks of the troop engaged these tanks. The result was that one Mk III German tank was set on fire and destroyed. Hits were seen to be registered on two other tanks but they continued and with the remaining 12 retreated quickly across the wire.

The accuracy of the enemy tank gunnery throughout this action was only fair.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Andreas]

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

Here is another fantastic Tiger shot. I would only note at this point that all these really long range shots are being done by the Tiger, and not by ordinary German tanks. Perhaps there is something different about the Tiger tank’s accuracy or optics that give it an edge? Anyway, here it is:

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The way I read the German quote is that the Tiger did not actually observe the shots, but that somebody else did for it. The request for equipment installation to enable FOOs to do the observation for this kind of shooting indicates as much.

I have just read a story about an 88 engaging a T-34 in the Caucasus at about 7,000m, and brewing it with the first shot ('fired as a lark'), by using the stereoscopic range-finders. Tough luck for the T-34 crew, victims of a freak occurence.

[Username]

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

-40F is -8C. Right ?

I hear a similar millimeter/inch conversion problem was the reason an American copy of the MG-42 (M-60 ?) did not get finished before the end of the war. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No...

-40F is -40C right? Yes right, as in correct. You should also cite a formula.

You are being the funny man poking the good fun at the silly americans, no? Well, actually you arent. Get your numbers right next time funnyman.

Lewis

[ASL Veteran]

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

The way I read the German quote is that the Tiger did not actually observe the shots, but that somebody else did for it. The request for equipment installation to enable FOOs to do the observation for this kind of shooting indicates as much.

I have just read a story about an 88 engaging a T-34 in the Caucasus at about 7,000m, and brewing it with the first shot ('fired as a lark'), by using the stereoscopic range-finders. Tough luck for the T-34 crew, victims of a freak occurence.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed, it could be read that way. What is the inverted image range finder and the converging image rangefinder? One of them must be that stereoscopic thingy you always see pictures of the Generals looking through?

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>ASL said: We should strive to supply the Tigers solely with PanzerKopfgranaten with tracers for better observation of each shot. An enemy battery was engaged at a range of 7600 meters by using a gunner’s quadrant. The enemy battery was silenced after six shots were fired at it. It is proposed that the Tiger Kompanie be outfitted with a Feldfunksprecher f (radio set f) to enable forward observers to direct their fire. In addition, the inverted image rangefinders should be exchanged for converging image rangefinders. Large errors result from using the former type in terrain with no discernible landmarks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The reference to the gunner’s quadrant is most likely an indication that this was indirect fire. However I get your gist from previous posts and would tend to agree with the point you are making.

From: "Panzer Regiment Grossdeutschland" Unit history by Hans Jung (Jung commanded a Panzer Kompanie in the Grossdeutschland Panzer Regiment During the war). An excerpt from the regimental history...1943'ish Ukraine...sometime after Kursk.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The actions of feldwebel Rampel of the II. Kompanie... He was supposed to take his tank to the maintenance facility on account of transmission damage. Since he was still mobile, he procured ammunition and a loader from another disabled Tiger and then received more ammunition from a one-ton prime-mover. Rampel then engaged forty attacking enemy tanks after an 88mm Flak gun positioned there withdrew. He almost knocked out a friendly Panther heading back to the facility. At a range of 1200 to 1500 meters he opened fire on the 40 attacking T 34s and KV Is, and every shot was a direct hit. Rampel destroyed seventeen tanks, causing the enemy to break off the attack. With his Tiger hit in the turret and main gun, Rampel drove back to the maintenance shop and transferred his wounded crew members to the troop aid station.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The post above by opfor6 is quite good. Tanks in defensive positions are likely to busy themselves in preparation of range cards and establishing alternative firing positions. And as opfor6 indicated it sounds like when time was available German Tank crews would fire ranging shots to reference points on range cards. Likely areas of enemy approach would be “zeroed in”. Establishing range to your target represents a large share of the accurate tank fire equation. If you have range knowledge at your fingertips before an action begins it obviously represents a real advantage in the accuracy of your fire.

In addition opfor6’s reference to “elite crews being authorized to open fire at long ranges” is interesting relative to recent articles I have read by Observer Controllers at NTC. In an Article entitled “Orchestrating the Direct Fire Fight” Maj J. Allen and M. Albertson discuss the employment of “sniper tanks”. “Sniper tanks” basically represent those 3 or 4 gunner\TC’s combos in every M1A1 tank company, which are distinguished marksmen\crews. Liberal employment of quotes from FM Rommel are sprinkled about the article. Anyway these “sniper tanks” were to be authorized to engage targets at extended ranges (3000m – 3500m). The gunnery skills of the “sniper tanks” were deemed good enough such that a relatively good probability of hitting their targets even at long range was assured (50% probability of scoring a hit is indicated in the article as a “good probability”. Incidentally British Army Operartional Studies conducted during WWII also use 50% hit probability as the bench mark for “effective” range. As I recall the 17-pdrs 50% range for APCBC was 1000m).

John Waters on the old 88 accuracy thread indicated that Tiger Crews typically represented picked men…the cream of panzer crews (if John said it, its probably not something he pulled from his shorts ). Tank crews that were: Well trained, highly motivated, and well acquainted with the intricacies of their equipment. This would certainly go along way toward explaining some of these long-range shots we might normally perceive as pure luck. This could be an implication that a higher ratio of Tiger Crews represented something similar to “sniper tanks”.

[Slapdragon]

This is one of the reason why Germans in scenario design and QB, at least through the end of 44, should pick higher relative crew experience, while units representing allied fresh off the boat, with exceptions (for example school units that moved over such as the 704th TD, 761st Armored etc) should choose green more often.