So I have to ask.....

[silverstars]

In CM:BN, what will be done to ensure the proper modelling of superior German optics vs. inferior allied optics?

This is what I'm really waiting for when the game releases. People can hem and haw about what features are in or out of the game all they want for right now. I'm waiting for the "this tank/gun is over/undermodelled, especially when vs. this tank's armor." For me that was half the game of the original CM.

And for those who don't know, go to the CM Archives 2000 and do a search for "German Optics" and have fun flitting through the 600+ replies on those posts......

[Lanzfeld]

Well....

The MG42 had a higher rate of fire than the MG3 so they better NOT just port it over! I will be counting rounds!!!!!!

[LongLeftFlank]

Was there still a meaningful difference by mid-44?

[silverstars]

It's hard for me to recall, but I do know that in general Germans enjoyed superior optics to everyone throughout the war. Panther tanks had binocular sights, and some had 2 different Magnification settings, and all sorts of options that other countries didn't have. TO be honest I am having a hard time looking up specific info through google.

But I do remember that CMBB had like, 4 or 5 different types of optics modeled for the Germans, and like 2 for the soviets:Normal and even more inferior then normal.

[Battlefront.com]

Allied optics found in CM:BN's timeframe are equal to the Germans in terms of matching quality/capability of gunnery systems to the gun itself. Or as the old saying goes, a pig in a dress is still a pig

One of the reasons why the German optics have the mystique of being superior is that if you have a gun that has an effective range of 4000m then you had better have optics which can see targets that far out. And if you expect super accuracy at 4000m the optics had better be pretty darned good. If you have a gun with an effective range of 3000m and the gun isn't extremely accurate that range, well you can go with a lesser quality setup and still wind up with the same outcome.

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

Wouldn't the brightness and clarity of the sight image effect how fast the gunner picks up the target though? I can imagine the following dialogue:

TC: Gunner right, 400 yds. Panther in the trees.

Gunner: Can't make it out, Sarge.

TC: Fire for Chrissake, he's onto us!

Gunner: Still can't make it out, Sarge.

TC: He's right there! Can't you...

Michael

[~Viajero]

TC: Gunner right, 400 yds. Panther in the trees.

Gunner: Can't make it out, Sarge.

TC: Fire for Chrissake, he's onto us!

Gunner: Still can't make it out, Sarge.

TC: He's right there! Can't you...

Gunner: Oh wait, I can see it now, barely. I can make out the commander out the turret... he seems to be somewhat agitated... like you sarge. Their main is not aiming at us yet though.

TC: Chrissakes Gunner, fire this thing already!

[noxnoctum]

Hahaha, you guys make me laugh .

I like that MG3 comment especially .

[finalcut]

Gunner: Oh wait, I can see it now, barely. I can make out the commander out the turret... he seems to be somewhat agitated... like you sarge.Wait,Wait Sarge,something wrong.His....His headphones and Mic are all wrong,they are the fuffenhieser model,and that model wasn't available to German Tank Commanders till October 15th of 1944.Somethings wrong here. Their main is not aiming at us yet though.

TC: Chrissakes Gunner, fire this thing already!

Fixed it for ya.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I'm surprised it hasn't been ID-ed as a Tiger.

[MikeyD]

I recall in CMBB at least 88 'superior optics' were modeled. But at the ranges we were usually fighting it didn't seem to make much of a differece - except Russian optics were assumed to be terrible which threw off the comparison. I read recently that German infantry sniper optics were actually pretty mediocre. That they had trouble ramping up for mass production and were actually playing catch-up with Russian sniper rifles throughout the war.

[Battlefront.com]

Sure, brightness and clarity matter. They also depend heavily on range and natural lighting. The longer the range, the less lighting, the more the quality mattered. But that's the point. All the research we did into optics for CMx1 showed that by 1944 the optics used in Allied vehicles were as good, if not better, in terms of their quality than the German optics when weapon capabilities were taken into account.

Put another way, a short barreled Sherman 75 was not hobbled by its optics any more than a Tiger's 88 was. Comparing the optics against each other has no meaning. And even then our research showed that by 1944 a direct comparison would probably favor the Allied optics on average. Understandable given the worst problems a Kodak employee faced was if he had enough ration stamps to get an extra pack of cigarettes. The workers at Zeiss, even if they weren't forced slave labor working on a few ounces of food a day, had a few more problems on their plates. Like being bombed in the middle of assembly or not showing up to work the next day because they were killed by a bombing run. Little things like that tend to affect quality

Steve

[finalcut]

When I was a little kid,maybe ten years old.I watched a War movie where a German factory got bombed and I cut school the next day and walked back home.When I got home,my Mom said"What are you doing home?"I said,"the School got bombed by a bunch of Bastard Bombers."That was one of the lines the German Officer used in the movie"The factory got bombed by a bunch of Bastard Bombers" and I repeated it to my Mom just like it was said in the movie.She didn't buy it,but I was ten,what the heck did I know.This is a true story.God I was a stupid little kid.

[Battlefront.com]

heh... no, you were just a kid. Stupid is implicit

Steve

[silverstars]

Darn. And here I was wanting to see people coming out of the woodwork with xeroxed test findings from 1946 showing such and such percentage when firing with this scope, and such and such percentage gained when using THAT scope, etc. Just like the old days, where you couldn't whine about how great the previous game was because you were too busy bitching about how they didn't get this tank right or how that tank was over-modeled, etc. And unlike modern warfare, with WWII you could find a book that proves how you are absolutely right, and everyone else was a liar!

The air was thick with groggery in those days I tell you, THICK!

[Battlefront.com]

The fun thing about those groggy arguments is pretty much nobody had materials that were worth a damned Like the guys who insisted that because the Tiger gunner's manual said a gunner should be able to hit x target at y range with z rounds every time got really upset when we pointed out that this was a standard for practice firing, not combat firing. That would then turn into a pissing contest as to who felt they could extrapolate the data better, which in turn revealed how funny Grogs can be when they all are sure they are right but none can find any proof of it

[Michael Emrys]

I'm surprised it hasn't been ID-ed as a Tiger.

No, it would have to be a Pz. IV for that to happen.

Michael

[Taki]

With Arguments like that from BFC i start getting the Sense that the Game will be biased to the US Side like the CMSF Title where. US-Americans work on the Game and they do just what they can to make it "balanced"

Hope it wont dissapoint me like the CMSF Title did. I started out with "Nice One ohh and ahh" but realised that its absolutly not Fun in the Long Term. No MP games showed up because of that assymetric Warfare and complicated Winning Condition.

Hope the Tanks dont get that UBER like the Overmodeled M1A1 and his friends.

Did the Allies have Stereo Optics on their Tanks? If not there is definatly an Advantage in Aiming. You can easier Ladder-Shot and are better with Stereo Sights in Estimating the Range.

If Allied have those Optics i take this point back. But i would like to look at Documents that show.

Im still ooking forward for Normandy but keep cool as it gets closer to release. I have been to dissapointed what happend with CMSF Uberforces against the Syrian Army.

[Lanzfeld]

Then you have THESE guys ^^^

Yup....the good old days.

[DaveyJJ]

Fixed it for ya.

Thanks for that. I almost spewed orange juice out of my nose reading your fix.

[panzermartin]

Didnt dedicated tank destroyers like Nashorns, Marders have some specialized long range optics compared to the average Sherman?

[Michael Emrys]

The Nashorns did. Not so sure about the Marders.

Michael

[YankeeDog]

Another thing to keep in mind in this whole debate is that armored combat engagement ranges in Normandy were usually pretty short due to the terrain. Furthermore, on many occasions in the Normandy campaign the Germans actually deliberately committed their armor at times when the weather further decreased visibility, primarily to avoid Allied air attack. There were, of course, some exceptions.

Regardless of gun quality, "superior optics" don't really matter that much when the average engagement range is sub-1000m. At these ranges, most WWII AFV optics were good enough to get the job done. And in short range fights allied advantages like faster turrets and fully electrical, gyrostablized gun mounts probably overcome any slight advantage provided by better German optics.

However, regardless of optics, the German tanks, on average, had much more accurate, higher mV guns. And even the more powerful Allied tank that did have a higher mV, like the 17pdr and the 76mm, generally did not match their German analogs in accuracy.

So overall, I would expect a substantially higher first round on-target percentage for the Germans at longer engagement ranges. But I think higher mV and superior gun ballistics are the primary factors here, with optics at best a tertiary contributor.

I am more interested to see whether other new factors like AFV height play a significant in role in CM:BN vs. CMx1. The Sherman tank has a relatively high profile compared to most German designs, which should make it significantly easier to hit in some situations -- bear in mind that errors in range are usually larger than errors in bearing in gunnery, so all other things being equal, a tall, narrow target is easier to hit than a short, wide one.

Now that we have more detailed modeling of hit location, it will also be interesting to see how factors like turret size vs. hull size come into play. The PzIV's turret was infamously vulnerable in CMx1, but CMx1 didn't take into account that the frontal turret area of the PzIV was relatively small in comparison to its overall frontal silhouette. Greater fidelity in this area could make the PzIV a much more dangerous opponent, especially when hull down.

[panzermartin]

Yes thats a good point. In CMx1 we had a "silhouete" unit value that determined its overall profile. In CMSF with the extremely accurate weapons you couldnt tell if small size really helped. Would be curious to see if low profile tanks like the StugIII or the small turetted PZIVs can make a difference in the game. I really hope so, PzIV was the less used tank in all the CMx1 series because of that. 50mm front turret that had the size of a tiger's.

[Rayak47]

Ok, I understand all the pro and cons, but begs the question why were they modeled at all in CMx1 if they weren't that important or superior? Seems like selective memory...(or we may see them in Eastern Front?)

Also agree that it probably doesn't matter for historical Normandy ranges, but may be important for building scenario's where extreme ranges are possible...