Wrong optics in Tiger I late, KT and JT?

[Ari Maenpaa]

Martin,

thanks for the answers. And thanks to all the others too for the comments.

"Good optics" is a "better" rating (game-wise) than "dual-mag optics". The Tiger I optics, while certainly dual-mag, were also among the best optics out there from what I have seen, and therefore qualify for "good optics". In other words - the rating in the game is primarily based on the game and combat performance, and not (only) the feature(s) of the optics.

Ok. This clears the things up quite a bit. The last sentence particularly.

But then on the other hand, does this mean that Pzkpfw IIIs and IVs have better optics than Panthers in CMBB? Even with veteran crews? Sounds funny.

Hmm, the TZF 9d, according to my sources (various, but for example the "Bildermappe optisches Gerät", page 28, an original Wehrmacht source) is a binocular dual-magnification sight.

Well, I surely can’t beat you with the amount of sources.

Jentz is unambiguous in his description of the sight, but, as I understand it, his main emphasis is on the tank as whole, not especially on the optics. Anyway, there seems to be only a single opening for the gun sight in the mantlets of the later KTs whereas the earlier KTs had two openings. Would that be a guaranteed way to make a difference between binocular and monocular optics, I don’t know.

"Narrow optics" basically includes the "long-range" feature, as most optics with a narrow field of view are optics with high magnification. However, "narrow" is "worse" than "long-range", meaning that the overall optical quality was poor and/or that the field of view was extremely narrow. In the case of the 2/1, it's mainly the latter. The field of view was extremely narrow according to my sources (FOV 4°), among the most narrow sights there were. As a comparision, the TZF 12 (Panther) has a FOV of 27°-28°.

Every author seems to have own opinion, Devey lists 2/1’s FOV as 7° (122m at 1000m). But I can see your point. Just for comparison: What kind of sight was used in the late model Jagdpanthers?

And, like Tom suggests, more throughout ranking than that in the manual about the different optics would be nice. Surely different tools are needed for different tasks, but how does more general types like “good optics”, “dual-magnification optics” and “binocular optics” rank in relation to each other? Also how does “standard optics” position itself among the different German optics?

Oh, this turning to an interrogation. I gotta stop now

And for those interested in production figures:

Tiger I sights:

TZF9b - 1253 produced between Jan 42 and Mar 44.

TZF9c - 643 produced between Mar 44 and Aug 44.

The later King Tiger sight:

TZF9d – 1092 produced between Apr 44 and Mar 45.

Source: the aforementioned Jentz’s Tiger books

Ari

[aka_tom_w]

Great thread!

thanks for all the posts and information about WWII optics!

-tom w

[Fishu]

Try with normal Tiger crew (at least veteran!) to hit moving T34 from 1000 meters within 3 shots.. will be hard.

In real life the T34 would been toast

[TSword]

What i found about the TZFs:

T.Z.F.9b For first Tigers

T.Z.F.9c For later Tiger

T.Z.F.9b/1 (Only early KTs): FOV: 25 ° (62 delivered in 1943)

T.Z.F.9d for later KTs starting delivery April 1944 (1092 produced)

Panther:

T.Z.F.12 (1706 produced)

T.Z.F.12a FOV: 28° at 2.5 x Mag, 14° at 5 x Mag (All Panthers leaving Factory starting 1944, Leitz stopped delivery of T.Z.F.12 Binoc in 1943), Total of 6743 produced

For the T.Z.F.12 Spielberger and Jentz have exactly the same figures.

It's i very unlikely that the respective monocular sights for KT and Tiger were inferior to the Panther sights since they all were produced by the same Factory (Leitz).

Interesting the Panther Commandtank version (Sdkfz 267 & 268) was fitted with a stereoscopic rangefinder with 1.32 m Base (Portable ?)!

The Rangefinder with 1.32 m Base and 15 x Mag had a practical Error of 68 m at 3000 m Range....

Greets

Daniel