Panther Fibel Discussion of Range Estimation

[rexford]

The Tiger Fibel presents two procedures to increase the accuracy of first shot attempts, the use of gunsight triangles (2 mil and 4 mil distances) to judge target range by relative ratio's and a three man range estimation method (using averages) where the gunner's estimate is weighted twice as heavily.

If a 3m wide target appears to be 4 mils wide on the gun sight, the target would appear to be 3 mils wide at 1000m and therefore is at 750m range.

Using an average of three range estimates might increase the first shot accuracy by 50% to 60% over that of a single man's estimate.

The question is whether the three man range estimating procedure as detailed in the Tiger Fibel is mentioned in the Panther Fibel, and whether such a method was used as a general rule in other German tanks or was limited to Tigers.

The relevant Fibels can be found at:

http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891/pantherfibel.htm

http://64.26.50.215/armorsite/TIGER-1%20FILES/tigerfibel.pdf

Assistance on this would be appreciated.

Thank you.

Lorrin

[Mr. Tittles]

I have never heard of this collective estimation. Typically, its the TC that calls out the threat, range, direction. How could the driver, with his poor optics, estimate range at all?

[JonS]

in the usual way.

[farmerch]

well, the other crew member just have a look and guess.

we used to take terrain elements into account. You know how a medium tree or a bush look from 500 metres. So a truck behind those trees might be 550 metres away.

(we used that technique to estimate the distance to vehicles when learning how to use a panzerfaust)

[rexford]

Originally posted by farmerch:

well, the other crew member just have a look and guess.

we used to take terrain elements into account. You know how a medium tree or a bush look from 500 metres. So a truck behind those trees might be 550 metres away.

(we used that technique to estimate the distance to vehicles when learning how to use a panzerfaust)

Where did you learn how to use a panzerfaust?

[farmerch]

Swiss Army, 2001 (not volunatry -> mandatory service)

Here is the model which is used nowadays: http://www.panzergreni.ch/funktion/waffen/waffenindex.htm

[Mr. Tittles]

Carrius , in Tigers in the mud, makes no mention of this technique at all. And it is pretty well detailed about combat using Tigers.

If the driver is to have his input used, he would have to stick his head outside. I find it comical for him to even SEE the target let alone guess its range while he is buttoned up.

Carrius goes into detail about the need to be unbuttoned (TC) during combat. Split seconds decides being alive or dead.

I would imagine that the Pantherfibel does not bother with this technique for at least a couple of reasons. One, it takes too much time and is not worth it. Two, the higher velocity panther gun is more forgiving of range error.

[rexford]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

Carrius , in Tigers in the mud, makes no mention of this technique at all. And it is pretty well detailed about combat using Tigers.

If the driver is to have his input used, he would have to stick his head outside. I find it comical for him to even SEE the target let alone guess its range while he is buttoned up.

Carrius goes into detail about the need to be unbuttoned (TC) during combat. Split seconds decides being alive or dead.

I would imagine that the Pantherfibel does not bother with this technique for at least a couple of reasons. One, it takes too much time and is not worth it. Two, the higher velocity panther gun is more forgiving of range error.

Does Carius explain the use of the gun sight triangles for range estimation, or the use of battlesight aim where one sets the gun for 950m or 1000m and is theoretically able to obtain first round hits on targets 2m high at any range from 0m to 900m?

The Panther 75mm would still miss more often than not at ranges beyond 700m, and it would be expected that the gunner might have as good, if not better, range estimate than the commander if the triangles were used. Two heads are better than one if the driver cannot see the target (a hulldown position would almost automatically limit or rule out a driver range estimate, especially if the tank were hidden in the brush).

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Did Barkmann or any of his crew members ever publish anything about their war experiences? If so, perhaps there is something in there about how range was estimated.

Regards

Jim R.

[tools4fools]

Originally posted by rexford:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

Carrius , in Tigers in the mud, makes no mention of this technique at all. And it is pretty well detailed about combat using Tigers.

If the driver is to have his input used, he would have to stick his head outside. I find it comical for him to even SEE the target let alone guess its range while he is buttoned up.

Carrius goes into detail about the need to be unbuttoned (TC) during combat. Split seconds decides being alive or dead.

I would imagine that the Pantherfibel does not bother with this technique for at least a couple of reasons. One, it takes too much time and is not worth it. Two, the higher velocity panther gun is more forgiving of range error.

Does Carius explain the use of the gun sight triangles for range estimation, or the use of battlesight aim where one sets the gun for 950m or 1000m and is theoretically able to obtain first round hits on targets 2m high at any range from 0m to 900m?

The Panther 75mm would still miss more often than not at ranges beyond 700m, and it would be expected that the gunner might have as good, if not better, range estimate than the commander if the triangles were used. Two heads are better than one if the driver cannot see the target (a hulldown position would almost automatically limit or rule out a driver range estimate, especially if the tank were hidden in the brush). </font>

[Mr. Tittles]

As far as the Tigerfibel, it was not available at the time of the introduction of the Tiger I. Carius states that there were no documents delivered with the vehicles and that the russians quickly captured some of the first Tigers and churned out documents that the Germans captured. Carius states that these russian documents informed them of thier own weak points.

Carius, like Wittman, states he used a folding arty scope. He says it was aquired and most likely NOT a standard item but should have been.

He clearly makes the case that the TC is the eyes of the AFV. It is the TC that senses the enemy and orders the Gunner on target. The TC helps the gunner by observing the fall of the shot. There is no time for getting multiple opinions and weighing in those opinions. The TC made the initial range estimation. The gunner would then have a chance to refine it himself. Carius was a TC and not a gunner and does not go into detail about technical details of shooting. But he IS the TC and he never mentions getting range estimates from other crew members, doing calcs on them, and then ordering a range to fire on.

The early T34s, with 2 man turrets AND lack of copula, were easily defeated not because of lack of armor or firepower BUT because of 2 man turrets and lack of copula. The motto was shoot first, if you cant shoot first, then at least hit first.

I wonder if German binoculars had the same 'triangle' capability? That is, did the German TCs use a similar strich method through the binos to estimate range?

[ July 14, 2004, 11:05 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[Joachim]

Checked all pages that seemed relevant in the Pantherfibel (links above).

3-men-technique to guestimate range is not mentioned.

(The reader is adressed as "Du" (ie singular). Interaction with comrades is not mentioned.)

Gruß

Joachim

[Mr. Tittles]

Original 7 x 50 Binoculars With Leather Carrying Case- These were used by panzer commanders or officers with high rank. The binoculars are marked “Dienstglas 7 x 50 1945040 M” and manufactured by “CARL ZEISS JENA”.

http://www.1944militaria.com/original_miscellaneous.htm

[Mr. Tittles]

In Armor Battles of the Waffen SS-Fey, pg. 125

Panther SOP was stated as having a AP round in chamber and sights set for 500 m when situation was unknown.

[Jeff Duquette]

While it’s always a bit awkward to try and extrapolate modern tank crew training with WWII-era applications, it is never the less sometimes tempting to look at such things. I won’t play up my experience, as it was limited to training with a National Guard armor unit for six years. We would typically shoot our tank tables twice a year at Ft. Irwin. There – that’s my brief practical experience resume. Take the rest of this for what it is worth.

From my own experience, there was never an occasion in which range or fall of shot were being assessed by anyone other than the TC and gunner. And the vast majority of this sort of thing was the responsibility of the TC. He made the calls on what targets to engage, what ammunition to use and what range settings to employ for an engagement. The TC also was the guy that made macro-range change commands based upon his observations of the fall of shot. The gunner was expected to automatically make micro-changes in deflection and elevation based upon his own observation of fall of shot – “placing burst on target”. He does this automatically as obviously the TC cannot know what the gunner’s exact site picture is during an engagement. So the TC calls out macro adjustments in range and deflection; on the other hand micro-adjustments – BOT – are automatically done by the gunner. That is how I was trained by Regular Army dudes at Ft Irwin.

I was trained as a driver, loader and gunner and played around as a TC – but never played as TC on the gunnery range. As a loader, I never felt I had the time to be peeping out of my hatch or through a periscope to watch fall of shot. Nor was I expected to be doing this sort of thing. And it would have been rather irregular from me to be attempting to do such a thing and subsequently butting into the normal sequence of gunnery commands and alerts. I was to busy humping ammunition as quickly as I could from ready racks. That was about all I could do when we were shooting an engagement at a rate of about 1-round every 7 to 10 seconds.

As a driver on a gunnery range, we were always buttoned-up. You could peer through your various vision periscopes but you cant really see much other than what’s immediately out in front of your tank. Picking up the fall of shot at 1000- to 2000 yards was not practically possible.

You are trained to shoot fast and accurately or your told by your trainers that you will be dead. There wasn’t the time and there certainly wasn’t a training mechanism in place to reinforce any notation of a TC asking each of the crewmen what they thought the range was. The speed of the engagement didn’t allow for such things. I suppose if I heard this sort of question crackling in my tank intercom, I would wonder to myself “does this TC really know what the heck he is doing”? Being the TC is to a fair extent about cocky assuredness in your own abilities. The guy has to exude a fair amount of confidence. It's important to the crew to feel that the guy in charge of their tank knows what he is doing at all times. So the idea that the TC would be asking his crew for their opinion on range just seems very odd to my understanding of the way tank crews work.

But this is all just my opinion and certainly not based upon sitting in a Tiger Tank during WWII. Perhaps panzer-crews did this sort of thing. Personally I would have a look at standard fire commands used by panzer crews. Do these suggest crew wide participation in the ranging process? From what I’ve seen panzer crew firing commands are very similar modern US Army firing commands.

[danielh]

I really can only wonder about all the fuzz about range estimation in shooting armor piercing at medium range.

In case of the Panther and Tiger:

A Tank 3m tall at 1000m will show as 3mils in the sight, correct "Nabelvisier" would be 1300m to hit him squarely in the middle. My "error-range" to still hit the tank with high probability is 800 - 1200m (In the first case a target 3m tall would show as nearly 4.5 mils, in the second at around 2 1/4 mils. One must have quite bad eyesight to make such an error when target is not in cover. First round hits will be the norm here

As soon a target is partially covered by brush and only partially in hulldown and moving, that's the situation were experience of the gunner comes really into play...

In this two respects CMBB is very bad in calculating hit probability. In case 1 CMBB hit probabilities are much to low, in case 2 they are way to high. In fact hit probs are much to much leveled out.

An enemy tank at 1000m in Hulldown and heavily camouflaged will be quite a hard target to hit, and only the most experienced gunners will hit within 3 shots..

When shooting high explosive, exact range estimation becomes much much more important especially vs. Infantry targets, here already small range estimation errors will produce huge impact deviations (That's the reason why a low velo gun is much better suited for direct firing explosives -> short L/24 7.5cm Kwk). In case the small target for instance a 4.5cm Russ. Pak is partially covered by foliage and the like, it becomes an art to hit the gun effectively with first 3 shots. Best scenario for a high velo gun here will be a target in a forward slope position. Here range errors won't give such errors. That's the reason why forward slope positions are to be avoided if possible....

(Range errors effect diminished, every hit can be seen relative to target much easier to correct)

Greets

Daniel

[danielh]

As to the observation tools for the TCs in Panthers and Tigers:

Spielbergers and Jentz's photographs indicate strongly that both tanktypes from the beginning were outfitted with holding mechanism for the "Scherenfernrohr" (12 x Magnification). Later Panther models (during A-series) also show a holder for the "Seestab", a device to observe effectively from full defilade positions.

Wether every Tank was effectively outfitted with the Scherenfernrohr and Seestab i don't know..., maybe someone can throw some light on this.

Greets

Daniel

[JonS]

Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

... There wasn't the time and there certainly wasn't a training mechanism in place to reinforce any notation of a TC asking each of the crewmen what they thought the range was. ... I suppose if I heard this sort of question crackling in my tank intercom, I would wonder to myself 'does this TC really know what the heck he is doing?' ... the idea that the TC would be asking his crew for their opinion on range just seems very odd to my understanding of the way tank crews work.

... Personally I would have a look at standard fire commands used by panzer crews. Do these suggest crew wide participation in the ranging process? From what I've seen panzer crew firing commands are very similar modern US Army firing commands.

Jeff, I'm not going to quibble with your experience. However, I am with your comments You mention it in the second paragraph above - SOPs. I can easily imagine an SOP that has the gunner and driver call out their range estimate in response to a command from the TC, who then does the maths in his head including his on estimate, and then orders the range to the gunner. So, it's not like they would necessarily be sitting around having a debate or anything Something like:

TC: Driver! Range!

Driver: 1200!

TC: Gunner! Range!

Gunner: 1100!

* slight pause *

TC: Gunner! Target, Tank! Range 1050! Go on!

or sumfink.

Also, one of the standard methods of estimating range we use is 'group estimate'. Not all the time, but it's a tool in the bag that a section commander can use.

Regards

JonS

[ July 14, 2004, 09:43 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Bruceov]

Didn't the Germans use a rangefinder, a Leica Type device when determing range?

[Mr. Tittles]

TC: Driver! Range!

Driver: 1200!

TC: Gunner! Range!

Gunner: 1100!

* slight pause *

TC: Gunner! Target, Tank! Range 1050! Go on!

LOL!

How about..

TC: Driver range!!!

Driver: To what??

TC: Oh, uh half left , Tank.

Driver: How far away???

TC: Uh, I dunno, you tell me..

Driver: Can't see it..

* slight pause *

BANNNGGGGG!!!!!

TC: GET OUT!!!!

[Mr. Tittles]

http://home.arcor.de/thuernagel/sf14-e.htm

Also..

http://afvinteriors.hobbyvista.com/jagtig/jagtig09.jpg

We are inside another vehicle now-- one that still has the commander's scissors periscope installed. There seem to have been a couple of different stereo binoculars used in German AFVs in WWII, but the SF 14Z that was normally used in the Jagdtiger was probably the most common. These optical instruments were a development of commercially available binoculars manufactured by Zeiss before the war. In Germany they were called "Scherenfernrohr" or scissors telescope (Zeiss called them "Relieffernrohre,"), but they were not a commercially successful product for the company when sold to the general public. An 8x20 model was offered from 1894 to 1906, and a 10x25 model from 1895 to 1908. This is probably the design that was later bought in vast numbers by the German military and used in both World Wars with little change.

Typically, these binoculars provided spectacular views of terrestrial objects, greatly magnifying the perception of depth in a scene as well as the appearance of modeled relief. They were also used as rangefinders in both wars by several service branches of most of the participants in the conflict, particularly the Germans. The smaller hand-held scissors periscopes were about 6x30 power, with objectives that could extend to 18 inches, and the usually included a folding hinge to reduce the overall length for transport. Larger tripod mounted instruments sometimes had 50mm objectives, very helpful for use at dawn and dusk, and these larger periscopes were the ones typically found in armored vehicles. The SF 14Z had a magnification of 10x, a field of view of 5 degrees, eye relief of 12.5mm, and inter-ocular distance of 57mm+ as stereo, and 58mm+ as periscope. Normally, the graticle in the right eyepiece showed 10mil squares with 2mil gaps at 5mil intervals. There was an interrupted cross at the center for the datum or aiming point. The graticle could be illuminated by an internal light bulb, and it also incorporated a small clinometer that was also graduated in mils. In our photo you can see the electrical wire and plug for the graticle light, the plug seen hanging on the right side of the periscope mount. The periscope seems to be hanging in mid air here, but there is indeed a black bracket below the periscope that crosses to the support bar at the right. A wing nut on the bracket allowed the periscope to be elevated to a comfortable position for the commander.

[Mr. Tittles]

http://afvinteriors.hobbyvista.com/stug3/stug1.html

Stugs clearly used these sights

Picture 11:

A commander in his open cupola is seen adjusting his SF14Z scissors periscope to gain range data for the gunner in front of him. The periscope is mounted on a pivoting bar that attaches to the inside front of the cupola and could be rotated, as he is doing here, with both hands. To range a target, the commander rotated a dial on the periscope base that angled the mirrors at the top. When the image was focused the range was read from an indicator. The new cupola on the Ausf G contained 8 removable viewing blocks around its perimeter, which improved the commander's closed down view of the world considera

[Mr. Tittles]

This is a Jagdpanther commander. Like the Jagdtiger and stugs and Jagdpanzer IV, he has a ranging scissors scope.

[Mr. Tittles]

Its evident that the Stugs, even the early KWK37 short barrels, had these ranging scissor scopes as standard equipment. Wittman of Tiger fame, who came from a stug unit, kept his scissor-scopes when he went to Tigers. The 75mmL24 halftracks also used them.

I have never seen a photo of a Panzer IV, short or long, using these scopes. I have seen some Panther commanders using them and the Tiger I commanders also may have used them (Carius/Wittman). But I don't think that they were standard equipment in Panzers like they were in stugs (or jagdpanzers). They may have been only used at zug (platoon) level in Panzers.

I remember reading a report that said that a competition between stugs and panzers showed that the stugs could aquire targets faster and hit them sooner. If true, could these scissor-scopes, coupled with the close proximity between TC and gunner in a stug, not be the reason?

[Mr. Tittles]

Originally posted by danielh:

I really can only wonder about all the fuzz about range estimation in shooting armor piercing at medium range.

In case of the Panther and Tiger:

A Tank 3m tall at 1000m will show as 3mils in the sight, correct "Nabelvisier" would be 1300m to hit him squarely in the middle. My "error-range" to still hit the tank with high probability is 800 - 1200m (In the first case a target 3m tall would show as nearly 4.5 mils, in the second at around 2 1/4 mils. One must have quite bad eyesight to make such an error when target is not in cover. First round hits will be the norm here

As soon a target is partially covered by brush and only partially in hulldown and moving, that's the situation were experience of the gunner comes really into play...

In this two respects CMBB is very bad in calculating hit probability. In case 1 CMBB hit probabilities are much to low, in case 2 they are way to high. In fact hit probs are much to much leveled out.

An enemy tank at 1000m in Hulldown and heavily camouflaged will be quite a hard target to hit, and only the most experienced gunners will hit within 3 shots..

Greets

Daniel

I agree. Also, the wide variety of tanks the germans used would make height/width recognition a problem. The Germans facing the soviets, with the large numbers of T34, had it easier.

Panther SOP was 500 m (this against a US unit). This would allow a Panther gunner to quickly engage a enemy vehicle that pops up. He would just get a quick sit rep from commander (enemy tank, half right, 600!), and his battlesight would allow a decent chance of hitting the threat. The most important thing is shooting first.

At medium ranges, where the Panther armor and gun accuracy buys it some time, a more precise method could be used. The gunner gets the sit rep from TC (lets say he has no scissors-scope), uses that as a baseline, measures target with triangle, and then sets weapon range and fires.

At longer ranges, the TC equipped with a scissor scope would be the data that is dialed in the weapon (don't bother with triangles). The only gunner skill needed would be leading moving vehicles.

Once a scissor scope equipped stug got the range, the enemy was in trouble. In '7000 Kilometers in a Stug', the author describes how four T34s are moving across his front at 1700m. He whacks all but one which is frantically reversing. The T34 makes a fatal error and stops (or is immobilized). The stug crew rejoices since they already have the range. The T34 is nailed with the next round. This was a 75mmL48 stug. The author describes using the scissors scope btw.

[ July 15, 2004, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]