Effectiveness of binocular, long-range etc optics

[Glider]

For some time I have been intrigued by various German optics models. For instance, does it pay to invest in a crack Panther with dual magnification optics in extremely cold conditions? How effective a “very long range” sighting system really is?

I searched the archives but failed to find a topic discussing this problem in depth.

I am prepared to run a series of tests if nobody has any tangible data concerning this issue. It would be good to discuss a reliable test model in advance, though.

Any thoughts?

[Bone_Vulture]

there seems to be a consensus about the optics here:

It would appear that the optics only improve spotting distance, not accuracy. Obviously, some sights also have a narrower field of vision.

[Glider]

Originally posted by Bone_Vulture:

there seems to be a consensus about the optics here:

It would appear that the optics only improve spotting distance, not accuracy. Obviously, some sights also have a narrower field of vision.

So, basically, you say that "narrow optics" are worse than the generic Russian optic system, because they do not improve accuracy, but they do restrict the field of vision?

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by Glider:

So, basically, you say that "narrow optics" are worse than the generic Russian optic system, because they do not improve accuracy, but they do restrict the field of vision?

So it would appear. Although the tank with the narrow optics (usually a Marder) might spot a Russian tank from a longer distance, if it moves inside its FOV.

Temperature, however, seems to affect accuracy. In extreme cold weather, German tanks are like snipers. I have my own experience of this (on the receiving side :mad: ).

[Glider]

Hm, I just ran a preliminary test with 10 veteran Marder IIIs with Russian 76.2mm guns (trying to avoid ballistics issues) against 10 veteran T-34s at 2,200m.

First round results: T-34s score 2 hits, Marder IIIs score 14 hits.

It looks like this issue warrants further testing.

[flamingknives]

wouldn't SU-76s be a better match? I thought the T34/76 mounted a 42 calibre piece

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by Glider:

It looks like this issue warrants further testing.

What was the temperature / weather?

Also, accuracy varies by round type and velocity.

[Glider]

Yes, you are both right, I just selected the first two types that seemed similar enough in order to get a rough estimate.

The weather was cool. I tried with Jagdpanthers in extreme cold and one of them scored first shot-first hit at 2,200m!

I will try a more accurate test tonight. So, you recommend SU-76s against Marder IIIs with 76.2mm guns?

[Moon]

There is a description of how optics work in the game manual. And they do improve accuracy. However, we track a whole bunch of factors, so depending on distance, weather, and the type of optic used, you might see a whole range of results.

In a nutshell, long-range optics with a narrow field of view provide a to-hit bonus at long range, but generally have worse spotting abilities (at any range), and it takes longer to acquire a target, too, even once spotted.

Martin

[Glider]

I understand that.... but I wanted to have a few numbers I can crunch

I just started playing an inter-club tournament with 5,000 points pure-armour forces and I simply wanted to know whether it pays to invest in a veteran late Panther (weather is cold) and get accuracy bonuses.

If the accuracy bonus is something like 12% instead of 10% - definitely not.

But if veteran Panthers with dual-magnification start hitting much more often than, say, PzIVs - it is another matter altogether.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

wouldn't SU-76s be a better match? I thought the T34/76 mounted a 42 calibre piece

So did the SU-76.

All the best,

John.

[NON]

Originally posted by Moon:

There is a description of how optics work in the game manual. And they do improve accuracy.

Hmm, I cannot see any evidence of that.

Made a scenario and put a lot of different AFV with the same gun next to each other, then placed three T-34 at different ranges.

All German AFV's were at the same distance from the targets within 1m and bunched together so tightly the difference in angle is minimal.

With this setup I get the following to-hit percentages for the first target at 690m:

75mm/L70:

Dual Magnification Optics (Pz VG late): 63%

Binocular Optics (Pz VA early): 63%

Long Range Optics (Panzer IV/70 (V)): 63%

88mm/L71:

Narrow Optics (Jagdpanther early): 70%

Very Long Range Optics (JagdPanther late): 70%

Good Optics (King Tiger): 70%

75mm/L48:

Long Range Optics (StuG late): 61%

Good Optics (Pz IVG): 61%

For the subsequent targets at 1078m and 1406m I get the same result (same gun having same to hit percentage regardless of optics/tank), except for a 1% difference between the Jagdpanther early and King Tiger at 1078m.

The 88m/L71 crews were veterans (since the manual states this level of expertise is required for very long range optics), the rest were regular.

The results did not change (that is, the to-hit percentages remained the same for each AFV fitted with the same gun) no matter which temperature was selected.

Do you mean that ANY type of German optics is better than all allied optics, but that the accuracy of German optics remains the same no matter the type?

Or is there some other kind of scenario that would show some differences?

Odie

[Glider]

Originally posted by NON:

...Hmm, I cannot see any evidence of that.

Made a scenario and put a lot of different AFV with the same gun next to each other, then placed three T-34 at different ranges.

...

75mm/L70:

Dual Magnification Optics (Pz VG late): 63%

Binocular Optics (Pz VA early): 63%

Long Range Optics (Panzer IV/70 (V)): 63%

...

That is exactly why I intend to conduct a number of live-fire tests.

I have a very distinct feeling that the "to hit" percentage reported by the CMBB engine does not take into account all factors, particularly not the optics difference.

I see it more as a rather raw guesetimate...

[NON]

I have a very distinct feeling that the "to hit" percentage reported by the CMBB engine does not take into account all factors, particularly not the optics difference.

I see it more as a rather raw guesetimate... ]

This could very well be. If so I would consider it a bit of an omission; if they're going to give precise percentages then you should be able to rely on them. Otherwise it would be better to just inform there's a "good", "fair" etc. chance to hit, as is done with the chance to kill.

That is exactly why I intend to conduct a number of live-fire tests.

This would be interesting, but it would be a HUGE undertaking. I'd guess that the potential variance from optics in chance to hit is less than 10% of whatever the 'base' chance is (before optics are taken into account). For it to be statistically significant you'd have to do 30+ runs per test case at the very least (unless the variance from optics is much greater than 10%). Furthermore, since variables beyond your control would be introduced after the first shot (target turning/exploding/fleeing, dust being knocked up from a round that missed etc.) you'd probably have to limit each run to one shot only, then start the test again.

Odie

[NON]

Oh, and one more thing. If the "to hit" percentage reported by CMBB does not take into account certain factors like you suggest, then optics would be one of very few factors it omits.

Make a scenario and toy around a bit. It's easy to see that the "to hit" percentage changes depending on target silhouette, hull down status, whether the target is moving, whether the shooter is moving, time of day, terrain/smoke partially obstructing LOS, wind , experience of crew etc. Since all these factors are taken into account it would be odd to omit only optics.

[Glider]

True, and I do not have time for comprehensive tests. I will try with a few rough evaluations – for instance even the preliminary test shows that at long ranges German ‘narrow’ optics is **way** better than the Russian one (14:2 result).

Since it will be almost impossible to measure spotting I will try to determine significant accuracy differences.

I will dig in 10 T-34s (so there will be no retreating) at 2,200m.

The first test will be ‘good’ optics (German worst) against Russian optics.

After that I will remove all the ammo from T-34s and run a few comparative tests to see whether there is significant (i.e. easily identifiable) accuracy difference between, say, ‘good’ and ‘very long range’.

All tests will be run in ‘cool’ weather, mid-day, no wind.

Going to set up the test 1.

[Glider]

OK, had to use PzIII lang against T-34s because you cannot dig in tanks of both sides.

Results of 3 10:10 tests at 2,200m

Hits:

11 (fired by Germans) : 5 (fired by Russians)

5 (G) : 4 ®

6 (G) : 3 ®

On the average, the Russians managed to fire 6 shells per 60 sec., so I had to stop counting the hits German scored after the second no 37, more or less.

Considering the fact that the Russians were using HE and that the PzIIIs were ‘cautios’ or ‘alerted’ all the time (and that must have been affecting their accuracy), I would say that these results at least indicate that the German ‘good’ optics is better at long ranges than the Russian one.

[NON]

Aren't there quite a few variables here besides the optics?

I don't think there's a German AFV with a gun identical to that on any Soviet tank. Marder III's vs. T-34 is probably the closest you can get but the stats on these guns are very different. Muzzle velocity is different, barrel length is different, they use different rounds and penetration is radically different.

And Marders have a silhouette rating of 85, compared to 93 for the T-34.

So with all these factors compounding, how can you separate out the effect of optics?

If you get the same or similar numbers that you did in your earlier test you can of course conclude that "German optics are better" but I don't think you can get much more specific than that. And it seems it's already generally accepted that German optics ARE better in CMBB

The second part of your test might yield more tangible results though.

And isn't "Narrow" the worst German optics? From the manual you get the impression that they're no better than "Good" with regards to accuracy and worse with regards to FOV.

[Moon]

Originally posted by Glider:

I understand that.... but I wanted to have a few numbers I can crunch

I just started playing an inter-club tournament with 5,000 points pure-armour forces and I simply wanted to know whether it pays to invest in a veteran late Panther (weather is cold) and get accuracy bonuses.

If the accuracy bonus is something like 12% instead of 10% - definitely not.

But if veteran Panthers with dual-magnification start hitting much more often than, say, PzIVs - it is another matter altogether.

It's difficult to give firm numbers to crunch since so many factors are at effect and since, frankly, it's been a while so I forgot a lot of the details...

But, the difference with regard to pure to-hit numbers is indeed very small, in the single digit % range most of the time, often as small as 1%.

Thing is that once you have spotted a target as large as a tank, hitting it is influenced by a lot of factors, and many of them are usually much more important than optics. You do not have to see the enemy tank commander's dogtags to be able to hit his tank *somewhere*.

Therefore other factors join in to differentiate good from bad optics - spotting and identifying enemies for example is influenced by optics. Atmospheric conditions play a role, too - both temperature as well as daylight conditions. Many of the high-magnification sights lose most of their benefits in darkness. Crew experience is important, too: an inexperienced crew operating a high-end Zeiss scope will not be able to get much benefits from it if it doesn't really know how to operate it, quite the contrary... And so on. We really did put in some effort here during research, but it's a lot more complex than mere to-hit numbers.

If you want to compare the latter, then keep in mind to use the same gun models. And keep in mind that "long-range" means something around 2000m or so. I just ran a quick test and put an Elefant, and an early and a late Jagdpanther on a flat map (October 1944, Italy), and put a few Shermans as targets at various ranges. The Germans all have 88/71 guns, but with various optics. There are 1-5% difference in to-hit numbers between the various optics.

Martin

[ June 11, 2004, 06:35 PM: Message edited by: Moon ]

[NON]

Originally posted by Moon:

If you want to compare the latter, then keep in mind to use the same gun models. And keep in mind that "long-range" means something around 2000m or so. I just ran a quick test and put an Elefant, and an early and a late Jagdpanther on a flat map (October 1944, Italy), and put a few Shermans as targets at various ranges. The Germans all have 88/71 guns, but with various optics. There are 1-5% difference in to-hit numbers between the various optics.

Martin

I simply cannot reproduce this. I made a new scenario with every parameter as you specified (although this is in CMBB so no Italy).

An elephant and a early and late Jagdpanther. I put out 12 Shermans anywhere from 400m to 2600m from the lumped up German tanks. Every single target shows the exact same "to hit" percentage for all vehicles.

I assume you used CMAK for your test. Is it possible something got broken in a patch somewhere for CMBB, or as Glider suggested that the effects of optics does not show up in the "to hit" percentage?

Any one else care to run this test?

[von Paulus]

Try to chagne the experience of crews. I believe that a veteran or crack crew on german tanks have a very higher Hit percentage than a regular crew would have.

This difference seems to me higher for german tanks than russian tanks, effectively due to the improved optics.

[Moon]

NON, yes, sorry, I used CMAK, with veteran crews for the Germans. I'll try it with CMBB next to see if all is as it should be.

Martin

[Glider]

...

Any one else care to run this test?

I tried with 3 10:10 tests at 2,200m just now.

I used King Tigers (good optics) and JagdPanthers (very long range) since that pits the worst German optics against the best.

They fired at dug-in T-34s (reduced accuracy due to hull-down position)

King Tigers:

1st test: 13 hits, 0 first shot hits

2nd test: 7 hits, 0 first shot hits

3rd test: 10 hits, 1 first shot hit

Jagdpanthers:

1st test: 15 hits, 1 first shot hit

2nd test: 13 hits, 0 first shot hits

3rd test: 9 hits, 2 first shot hits

(one should take into account the fact that there were a number of catastrophic kills during the 3rd tests, forcing an unusual number of Jagdpanthers to switch targets during the test)

I would say that a difference is probably there, and that it could be a significant one in games with long-range engagements involving a considerable number of tanks.

[Glider]

Originally posted by Moon:

...

and many of them are usually much more important than optics...

Yes, rate of fire etc... that probably makes my tests too inaccurate to be relevant. Well, whatever, I porbably have time to waste... in my country they use to say 'idle priest starts baptizing billygoats'

[tools4fools]

You don't need to dig your tanks in that they won't run from the big cats.

- put a little lake around them

- put the tank on the shooting range and put terrain not passable for vehicles "under" the tank afterwards (rough and marsh). Tanks still can turn on those, but no more running away.

Got another question myself.

Are gun laying systems modelled in BB or AK?

What I mean is that I read few times that German tankers liked their waepons better as they found they were able to lay their guns accurately and fire faster than their counterparts (those comments were about Russian tanks, IS 2 in one particular case (Tigers in the mud by Carius. He states there that a good gunner did not need (horizontal) fine adjusting after turning the turret).

This is seems to be a very important fact as especailly on short ranges often the ones who gets the first shot out will win. This is usually the tank with the fast turret.

My point would be that even if you have a fast turret but fine adjusting will take too much time you might get your shot out second. Particularly the case if you have to turn the turret only a few degrees - fast turret with slow gun laying for 22,5 degrees turn would be 2,5 sec plus x adjust time, for slow turret it would be 7,5sec plus x adjust time.

Now the Tiger would slow his turret rotataion down towards the end of turning the turret, so its turn time would be a bit slower than those 7,5 seconds, but it a shorter adjust time could make a difference if it saves several seconds.

How long does such adjusting take in real life?

No idea myself here.

In CM it seems a uniform 4 seconds.

If a less precise gun laying system would result in lets say 6-7 seconds instead and a precise and fast one uses only 3 sec, then the total time for first shot would be 8,5 to 9,5 sec for fast turret with slow gun laying and 10,5 sec for slow turret - not much difference anymore. For short turns under 20 degrees the slow turret with precise gun laying would get a first shot then actually.

The above times were measured shooting at aera targets.

A tank like the Valentine with a fast turret but where final adjusting was done by handwheel would probably take more time to aim the gun.

Wonder how the vertical gun laying was done on this tank, the book mentiones "using the gunners shoulder piece". If it is as I imagine, that gunner better doesn't have a cold...

Shooting at tanks head on (no turret turning needed)it looked like that better optics not only improve spotting but accuiring of the tartget as well - elite and regular Tiger got first shot out early in second 5, conscript Tiger and elite Sherman in second early 6, regular and conscript Sherman late 6. So good optics do seem somehow to improve gun laying time.

Other observations:

- conscript tanks do not have cover arc (did't know that until did the time tests I needed for the above)

- elite crew gets first shot out way faster

- Reload time (and readjusting the gun) of elite is way faster than conscript.

- Hit % at 1000m were 45% (elite Tiger) to 16% (both conscript Tiger and Sherman). Didn't realize that conscripts are that bad (seldom use them...)