Quality of T34/B sights.

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ:

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???<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This report from s.H.Pz.Abt 503 dated 02.15.43 might help:

Useing 8.8 cm Panzergranate successes against enemy tanks were achieved at short as well as long ranges.

The most favorable range is 1200 - 2000 meters. At ranges up to 2000 meters, a direct hit is reckoned on with the first or at the latest by the second shot. Additionaly, small errors in range estimates at these ranges are almost insignificant.

However with good visibility sucess is even possible at ranges over 3000 meters. As an example, at ranges of 2500 to 3000 meters, one PzKpfw VI fired 18 rounds to destroy five T-34 tanks of which three were moveing across its front .

Rrgards, John Waters

[Stalin's Organ]

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

This report from s.H.Pz.Abt 503 dated 02.15.43 might help:

However with good visibility sucess is even possible at ranges over 3000 meters. As an example, at ranges of 2500 to 3000 meters, one PzKpfw VI fired 18 rounds to destroy five T-34 tanks of which three were moveing across its front .

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks John.

One Tiger did this? What about the other 2500 that were made???

My point remains - this is a report that mentions a single tank specifically because it's feats were unusual - if they weer common then one particular tank would not have been singled out.

also the report says nothing about the erlative quality of the optics.

You might say "Well we don't read of any Russians killing German tanks at 2km+"! True - but why would the Russians be shootign at that range in the first place? Even if they did hit they weren't going to kill any tigers! they had to close the range, so I'm not surprised that we don't see any reports of them trying to engage at 2000m.

Yuoocould probably take pot shots at 5km if you could see the target with any gun in WW2, and kill a few T34's at that range if you fired enough shots from an 88. But it proves nothing appart from the law of averages - throw enough shells in a direction and one of them will hit the aiming point sooner or later.

If there were reports of IS-2's killing Pz-4's at 2500m would that mean that Soviet otics were wonderful?? Not to me it wouldn't - it would jsut mean that the medium tank got zapped by a big gun at long range!

[ 06-18-2001: Message edited by: Stalin's Organ ]

[Jeff Duquette]

Sounds like Stalin is engaging in a bit of sophistry

sorry couldn't resist.

[Stalin's Organ]

Nah - I was just looking up the Russian Military history web site and noted that the Sov's report engagements at ranges of 12-1800m quite often, with 1000m being mentioed some times as a "short" range, sometimes as the range for the first shot from ambush.

Ranges under 1000m are not mentioned as often often, and are sometimes termed "very close" or even "lethally" close (150-200m).

Otherwsie I jsut object to people saying that the Germans must've had superior optic's 'cos they could kill T34's from 2-3km away when it's not a legitimate conclusion from the information given.

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ:

Thanks John.

One Tiger did this? What about the other 2500 that were made???

[ 06-18-2001: Message edited by: Stalin's Organ ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You asked for an example of rounds fired to achieve a hit I suplied one as to the other Tiger's I dunno, the report was considered representive of the Tiger's gunnery system capabilities at ranges even out to 2500 - 3000ms.

As to optics I don't see where the rounds fired is reprersentive of the optical abilities except in the area of target aquisition & observing shotfall & makeing corrections. Any tank could engage out to 1000ms if the optics allowed it to 1st actualy see the target, and provided a somewhat clear observation of shotfall to adjust fire.

The area German optics were 'better' in was suposedly clarity of sight picture, that allowed them to quickly aquire a target (due to sight picture clarity) & visibly observe shotfall & adjust at ranges of even 2000 - 3000ms, compared to Allied sights, Ie, the orginal Sherman sight reportedly had problems fireing at tank size targets over 1000yrds, due to sight picture deteriation above that range.

Which also brings us to 2 other areas previously discussed as in the role of the TC in spotting the target for the gunner Ie, an US report on TC spotting co-operating with the gunner stated that range error occurences in rangeing & adjustments from TC to gunner were as high as 25% IIRC. TC & gunner co-operation was vital to WW2 tankers, how do you quantify that aspect in a game.

Spotting as well how do you handle the spotting between the comatants, Ie, Heinz has those great Zeiss binos, well Joe has the inferior US made ones, should German optics even binos provide a better % on spotting vs Allied devices, etc, etc, etc..

Anyway all this has be hashed over & rehashed in the original thread & I would reccomend if anyones realy interested they read the 8.8cm thread as this subject has been beat to death.

Regards, John Waters

[ 06-19-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Matthew_Ridgeway]

***PUNT***

[Freak]

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

Sounds like Stalin is engaging in a bit of sophistry

sorry couldn't resist.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hehe...a blocking manuver!

sorry I couldn't resist either.

[Moon]

Working for an optics company (the ONE US Company which comes "close" to Zeiss and Swarovski as somebody mentioned earlier...hehe) I can tell you that talking about quality differences of various optical parts usually always includes people's opinions, simply because except for the two most extreme examples of possible quality (the best and the worst), most differences are rarely obvious to the eye without careful examination and/or without actual practical use under stress conditions.

Take a good set of binoculars and a cheap one and look through them in a store or at home - you will hardly see much difference and if you do, it's partly due to your imagination (you know that one is more expensive). Now take both glasses and spend a day outdoors, hunting, hiking whatever. You'll figure out what quality difference really means quickly. Overcast conditions, fog, rain, humidity (or lack of it) influence the practical use of a set of optics tremendously. Manually inserted filters can hardly hope to achieve the effect of multicoated optics, and the quality of the glass itself can have a huge impact, too.

Tank optics, which are under so much more strain when in combat, are even more prone to this. So I am asking myself if and when the Allies conducted tests of German optics, how much was actually done in a real combat situation?

[kipanderson]

The two second rule.

Hi,

As I seem to be in a minority of one in agreeing with the rough outlines of what someone above called the “the two second rule” I thought I would just see if I could quickly find some supporting opinion. Trying to find the paragraph I referred to in one of my Jane’s magazines would take forever, you should see the piles of issues. So I turned to my other number one source on such matters, the textbooks written by the lecturers at the Royal Military College of Science, Shrivenham. I have a number of them, they are stunning value, you would pay hundreds of pounds for the same information from Jane’s, anyway in one of them I found this in the introduction to the section on tank firepower,

“It is always difficult to be specific about the ranges that should be considered “short” or “long”, but as a rough guide, for tank engagements, 0-1000m is defined as short range, 1000-2000m as medium range and 2000-4000m as long range.”

Not quite my/Jane’s “two second rule”, but in the same ballpark. As I said these books are textbooks and are full of graphs, equations and tables of data. The above book was written in 1991 and makes clear that they are assuming a muzzle velocity of 16000m/per/sec unless otherwise stated. It must also be remember that the above refers to a tank with modern FCS, fire control systems, including laser range finders. The question is can the above sentence be converted into anything that may be of use in terms of WW2? Well, yes, it can.

Firstly, the simple question of muzzle velocity. The above sentence assumes a muzzle velocity of 1600mps. If we assume a muzzle velocity of 800mps, for a WW2 tank gun, then all we need do is halve the above ranges. If we do this then the “spin” is actuality in favour of the WW2 gun, if there is any spin. This is because smaller rounds have a more rapid drop off in velocity over time than bigger rounds. I am assuming we are dealing with WW2 guns of 75mm-88mm. Anyway if we adjust for WW2 muzzle velocities we end up with a sentence like this,

“It is always difficult to be specific about the ranges that should be considered “short” or “long”, but as a rough guide, for tank engagements, 0-500m is defined as short range, 500-1000m as medium range and 1000-2000m as long range.”

However, we can not leave it there. The above sentence assumes a WW2 tank gun of 75mm-88mm, with muzzle velocity of 800mps, but also with a modern, laser, FCS. The last question we have to address is, “what is the percentage change in practical range when moving from a modern, laser FCS back to a WW2 sighting system?” The truth is I have no idea. What I am going to assume is this, no change in short range, a 10% reduction in what may be called medium range, and a 20% reduction in what may be called long range. This would mean that when referring to WW2, rather than current tanks, the staff at Shrivenham would probably have written some thing like this,

“It is always difficult to be specific about the ranges that should be considered “short” or “long”, but as a rough guide, for tank engagements, 0-500m is defined as short range, 500-900m as medium range and 900-1600m as long range.”

All in all very close to what the guy from Jane’s wrote about the “extreme outer limit of range being two seconds of flight time at muzzle velocity.” Clearly the staff from Shrivenham and the author from Jane’s are roughly in agreement. As I would have expected. It is important to note that both are clearly referring to battlefield conditions and not what may be achieved on a testing range.

I am sure all the reports of long range hits in WW2 are not false. However, it is my view, and I could bore you all with a specific example to illustrate this, that many “reports” will have been exaggerations. This is, in my view, others will disagree, because of the huge stress combatants are under. This does not reduce my respect for those that fought inWW2 and managed to hold things together, even for those that did not manage to hold things together.

All the best,

Kip.

PS. There is no perfect answer, that is the fun of these discussions, in my view.

[PzKpfw 1]

Let's look at this another way from most data we have seen on gunnery the Tiger E's 8.8 cm was considered most effective at ranges from 1200 - 2000ms the Panther's 7.5 cm was most effective from 1400 - 2500ms.

Now these are just 2 examples of two tank guns & their optimum ranges. What range do we classify the above at medium or long? most will say long because were discussing WW2 tanks. If it's long range or 'extreme' range how did they come up with these numbers etc.

One thing to add to this discussion the German Panther & Tiger's FCS was built to destroy enemy armor at long ranges every part of the FCS was built specificly around the optics.

Basicly a gunnery platform that was immune to the OPFOR's current AT wpns, that could destroy enemy armor while it was beyond the OPFOR's armor's main gun's effective range to retaliate.

One of the biggest impressions we have from the Russian Front is German Tiger & Panther tanks eploited their long range gunnery abilities & armor advantages over Soviet tanks.

The question that arose here was how do you quantify this, in a game, the simple answer is you cant, ppl have laid out report data, AA report data, refrence pages etc, etc, etc none of it was considered relavant.

which brings us back to square one optics . Steve etc feel the US/UK had an edge in optics over the Soviet's yet we see from posts here, & in the past on the mutha of all optic threads that their realy is no way to even begin to prove or disprove Soviet optics were as good or as bad as US/UK/GE optical devices.

Seems we have come full circle again doesn't it folks ..

Regards, John Waters

[ 06-19-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[kipanderson]

John, hi,

Always good to read your views.

I basically agree with you about Soviet/German sights. Given the views of the British experts who’s reports I held in my hands last week, that Soviet sights may even be high quality in 1942, and given the view of the Germans that they were low quality, what do Steve and Charles do? There is no way to square the circle.

One area that we still disagree on is WW2 tank gun range. But that is all part of the fun. It is just that having seen all the equations and tables in the Shrivenham books, once any shell has been in the air for two seconds or so it is struggling to hit what it is pointed at. Even today. Of course, all this is relative.

All the best,

Kip.

[PzKpfw 1]

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

John, hi,

Always good to read your views.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Kip yours to ...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

and given the view of the Germans that they were low quality, what do Steve and Charles do? There is no way to square the circle.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The German's considered Soviet tank optics 'poor quality' compared to their own tank optics, I dont think the Germans meant poor, as in, 'general' construction etc, but more as in poor vs their optics qualities only.

Then we have as I have said before the Soviet's reporting that the M4A2 LL Sherman's optics were superior to their own T-34-76 & T-34-85 sights etc, so I pity Steve & Charles on this as its so contradicting a subject.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

One area that we still disagree on is WW2 tank gun range. But that is all part of the fun. It is just that having seen all the equations and tables in the Shrivenham books, once any shell has been in the air for two seconds or so it is struggling to hit what it is pointed at. Even today. Of course, all this is relative.

All the best,

Kip.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As we shall always Kip ;)as I believe the German evaluation reports concerning the Tiger's trial period in Russia, these crews got to test the Tigers limits etc to the max etc, you & I et, all here have no such experiences outside of books etc.

Regards, John Waters

[ 06-19-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Matthew_Ridgeway]

Numerous accuracy studies were conducted during the war by the British Army, US Army, German Army, and presumably the Red Army. These studies are available if one searches for them. This topic is only mysticism if you allow it to be.

Both the British and German Army considered doubled dispersion as an accurate measurement of accuracy in combat.

In addition, German training doctrine for tank gunnery is 1 hit in 4 allotted training rounds at a target between 1200 to 2000 meters. Moving target at 800 to 1200 meters 1 hit in 3 allotted rounds. Troops are trained as they will fight and fight as they were trained. That is the whole idea behind training. Learn your tasks by rote…thinking is minimized, reflexive action is maximized. Gunners and loaders are not required to think…let the TC do that.

The "2 second rule" is either being misinterpreted or misrepresented here. Or it has no real basis. Naval direct fire gunnery (somewhat analogous to tank gunnery with exception that a ship will pitch and roll from wave action) often entailed targets being engaged at ranges far in excess of 10,000 meters. Initial engagement ranges for the Battle of Jutland were in the realm of 14,000 to 18,000 yards. Muzzle velocity of a 14” gun of the period was in the real of 2500 to 2700 fps (same realm of MV as 75mm to 88mm anti tank guns). Time of flight of a 14 inch AP projectile at a target 14,000 yrds away is approximately 30 seconds.

[Stalin's Organ]

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

Let's look at this another way from most data we have seen on gunnery the Tiger E's 8.8 cm was considered most effective at ranges from 1200 - 2000ms the Panther's 7.5 cm was most effective from 1400 - 2500ms.

Now these are just 2 examples of two tank guns & their optimum ranges. What range do we classify the above at medium or long? most will say long because were discussing WW2 tanks. If it's long range or 'extreme' range how did they come up with these numbers etc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It also raises another question - was it the gun, or the tank that was considered effective at these ranges?

Perhaps the only way to answer this would be to ask what range the Flak 36 was considered as "effective" in the AT role and compare it with the Tiger E - it being essentially the same weapon.

also perhaps consider what ranges the Tiger B and Nashorn were considered "effective" at - one being heavily the otehr lightly armoured.

If it's the vehicle package in toto that's being assessed then you'd expect different results - if it's just the gun then the same.

[rexford]

88 Flak had much larger dispersion than Tiger I 88, probably due to shaking of the mount versus a nice heavy tank platform.

2 second rule seems to go out the window with Tiger I and Panther experience.

American tankers note that German optics are superior to theirs in low light, like overcast. Now isn't it amazing that the actual fact is that German sights should be better in low light conditions, based on posts on this thread.

Suggests that whatever American tankers did to actually compare sights, they hit the difference right on the head, which suggests direct comparison under overcast low light conditions.

How to calculate hit % difference due to sights? How does one differentiate between an elite crew hit % and an average hit%? How does one compute hit % difference between 88L71 and 75L24? Since CM does not appear to compute hit % using trajectories, range estimation and dispersion, the system would seem to be open to subjective adjustment.

Correct for sight qualityy by adjusting the curve till it seems right. German sights outshine others during low light and conditions that render targets difficult to pick up. This is highly specialized, isn't it? How often would the sight superiority show up in CM?

Could T34 hit at 1500m with poor sights? This is basic question. Shermans with garbage sights can't hit very well beyond 500m or so, sights on roof hooked to gunner via linkages that get misaligned.

1500m accuracy by T34 suggests decent sights, doesn't it? That was 1942.

Could T34 sights have deteriorated as war progressed, or have varied from one factory to another or one shipment to another. Maybe.

Some reports on IS-2 say that it took an exceptional crew to hit beyond 1200m. Yet standard penetration range against Panther glacis is 1500m.

Are German reports on penetration ranges realistic? German reports seem to coincide with American reports. Nothing beyond 3000m, but 2000m or more.

Our book has 10 mph wind drift data for U.S. APCBC. 2.2m wind effect for 75mm L40. That's a miss if one aims at the center of just about anything.

But the second shot corrects for the error in the first shot, so wind effect roughly disappears after the first shot. Same for sideways drift, which is also in the book.

Estimates are fine, but the final judge of an equation is how well it fits the real thing.

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ:

It also raises another question - was it the gun, or the tank that was considered effective at these ranges?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The gun was considered at optimum performance at the ranges stated. The Panther & Tiger's armor was also immune frontaly to the T-34-76 & T-34-85 main gun rounds at those ranges.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

also perhaps consider what ranges the Tiger B and Nashorn were considered "effective" at - one being heavily the otehr lightly armoured.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aye, with the Nashorn we have to look at the gun.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

If it's the vehicle package in toto that's being assessed then you'd expect different results - if it's just the gun then the same.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well the Panther & Tiger were built from the ground up to house & compliment the vehichles FCS, the ammunition was designed to compliment the optics, the gun was built to compliment the optics etc. So basicly we can break it down to an FCS or an gunnery platform discussion.

Matthew - The data from accuracy tables on country testing/training etc has all been posted before in the original thread. The data was basicly dismissed.

Regards, John Waters

[ 06-20-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Grisha]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>rexford said:

1500m accuracy by T34 suggests decent sights, doesn't it? That was 1942.

Could T34 sights have deteriorated as war progressed, or have varied from one factory to another or one shipment to another. Maybe.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1942 would have been the worst year for production quality, since most of Soviet heavy industry had just gotten settled beyond the Urals, and were most likely trying to get enough workers to man the line as well as get them skilled enough to be reliable. 1943, on, would have seen a much better level of quality in Soviet equipment, since most of the problems in 1942 would've had a year to iron out.

[Jeff Duquette]

One advantage of gun sights, which is quite “tangible” and provides a pronounced advantage to a gunner, is having optics with multiple magnifications available at ones fingertips. In a telescope for aiming devices, high power, wide field of view, well-defined images, and compactness are all desirable characteristics, which seemingly mutually oppose each other relative to the manufacturing process. The advantage of high power is frequently overrated. As high power increases the size and clarity of an image, it decreases the field of view. Also higher power inversely affects illumination unless the objective lens is increased in diameter, which, in turn, adds bulk and weight. A wide field of view can be obtained only by reducing power (magnification).

All civilized modern tank main-gun sights typically have two magnification settings. A lower power setting which allows the gunner to scan a wider field of vision, and a high power setting which is employed for actual targeting for medium and long range firing. The lower power\wider field of vision setting eases the gunner’s task during initial acquisition of a target. Just because the TC sees the target doesn’t mean his gunner does. The wide field of vision helps in this regard. Once the gunner identifies the target he will typically click over to the higher power setting for actual targeting (unless of course it is a short range engagement or battle sight engagement where speed is much more critical then precision aiming). The higher power eases the gunner’s task in actually laying the weapon on target.

Just an aside, but at longer engagement ranges, the lower magnification setting gets to a point in which the target image literally becomes obscured by reticule lines in the gunners scope.

Again modern tanks have this multiple power gunners optics system. Why? Because it gives gunners an edge in combat. As a rule the majority of WWII tanks did not have this multiple sight magnification system. There were of course a few exceptions to this rule.

[Matthew_Ridgeway]

Pz I: “Matthew - The data from accuracy tables on country testing/training etc has all been posted before in the original thread. The data was basicly dismissed.”

OK I’ll bite. What brilliant theory was produced which would indicate test-firing data should be dismissed from a disscussion on accuracy? Was this a theory brought to us by individuals (who shall remain unnamed), which tend to have problems understanding how gravity affects basic kinematics?

[Grisha]

Jeff,

Interesting post. So, in WWII tank gunners had only hi-magnification? That must've been rough when sweeping across the landscape for targets. You'd probably want really tight gunner-commander teams.

[Freak]

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

Pz I: “Matthew - The data from accuracy tables on country testing/training etc has all been posted before in the original thread. The data was basicly dismissed.”

OK I’ll bite. What brilliant theory was produced which would indicate test-firing data should be dismissed from a disscussion on accuracy? Was this a theory brought to us by individuals (who shall remain unnamed), which tend to have problems understanding how gravity affects basic kinematics?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would like to know who's theory it was too.

[Slapdragon]

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

Pz I: “Matthew - The data from accuracy tables on country testing/training etc has all been posted before in the original thread. The data was basicly dismissed.”

OK I’ll bite. What brilliant theory was produced which would indicate test-firing data should be dismissed from a disscussion on accuracy? Was this a theory brought to us by individuals (who shall remain unnamed), which tend to have problems understanding how gravity affects basic kinematics?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem is exactly the opposite of what you assume, far from being a problem with people who don't understand gravity, it is a problem with people who understand it very well, and also understand some of the basic hurdles bald numbers need to jump through before they become a valid data set.

Much of the data presented in these forums comes from a few secondary sources which are available or have been available on the book store shelves. These secondary source authors generally collect their data from a wide variety of sources, but sometimes they do not cite how they got it, and often their sources have not followed what are now standard procedures for testing ballistics, accuracy, and penetration. Also, data from different data sources can vary wildly in numbers because they do not use the same methods of obtaining data.

To give you real life examples of this, testing of captured German weapons by the US was often conducted by dismounted the weapon in question, shipping it to Dalhgren or one of the other armories, and firing it at test plate. Often the testers would be forced to hand turn shells and hand mix powder to get a supply of ammunition. Other testers would part the weapon carryer whose weapon was being tested in front of a damaged tank, throw in some captured ammunition (whose age and origin could be unclear), and shoot it a dead tank. Both of these tests violate basic testing prinicpals because they do not: 1) randomize variables that cannot be controlled (hand making ammo or using just what you found adds a variable to the problem), 2) Report the standard deviation, standard error, and other basic statistical numbers associated with the test. This is especially true for accuracy where the statistics are more important than anything else.

Next you have things which may be factors, but which are too small to model, or which no quantification is possible. Much of the sight argument revolves around issues that would affect a hunter shooting long range game, but whose CEP affect is probably so small as to be undetectable by the game, and hense not modelled. The second revolves around data that may be true, but because no proper study has been undertaken, no gaming factors can be assigned successfully to the issue. An example of this is the issue of German duds 1944-45. German, US, and French sources all talk about the large number of sabotaged shells produced by the German war industry. Ambrose recounts an artillery barrage in which half the shells were inert, and German crews complained of shells which fired at way below their expected velocity or showed other defects. We could, arbitraily, say that 21% of German shells are duds, and leave it at that, but in reality we have come no where near getting any sort of satisfying # of bad shells went to front line units. Thus the game totally ignores this big issue.;

[Tero]

Here is some relevant data based on the subjective opinions of the end users of both products:

The Finnish army operated both the T-34 and the Stug-III during WWII. The tankers rated the Stug ahead of the T-34 (both the 76 and the 85mm variant) because

- the German optics were better

- the gun handling was easier (lighter) and more precise on the Stug

- the Stug cannon was better in penetration power

The only things going for the T-34 were better armour and cross country mobility.

8 Finnish Stugs were lost to enemy action while the number of T-34's rose from, IIRC, 7 to 18 during the Soviet summer assault in 1944. None of the "original" T-34's were lost. Normal engagement distances ranged from 30 and 1000 meters for both vehicles.

After the war there were plans to mount the German 75mm gun on the T-34's. These plans were dropped however. The T-34's were phased out while the Stugs, after they were phased out of active service in the mid 1960's, went on to serve as static gun emplacements until the 75mm ammo became unstable and too dangerous to handle in the late 80's.

[ 06-20-2001: Message edited by: tero ]

[Freak]

Interesting Tero.

[Tero]

Forgot:

Stugs were credited with 80+ kills, the T-34's with 3, IIRC.