So I have to ask.....

[Rayak47]

Great point on the silhouete comments. This has always been huge in tank engagements. I was assuming that accounting for and including silhouettes in hit calculations was a no-brainer and in the game?

[Battlefront.com]

It seems that whenever we do not comply with a baseless stereotype we are called "biased". It's a fun and ironic position to be in

Nobody has ever made a rational argument that the Abrams is over modled in Shock Force, so I can't take that claim as serious. Just like I can't take the claim of über German optics seriously either because we did an exhaustive amount of research and public debate back in the CMx1 days. The conclusions we came to are probably the most unbiased and informed possible. The fact that they go against long held biases is not our problem.

Note that very few German AFVs had stereo gunnery optics. IIRC only the StuGs had them because they were, supposedly, artillery. And yes, in some situations it would give a benefit, but it wouldn't be across the board for the reasons Yankee Dog stated.

As with many groggy details people argue over, we will continue to have "much ado about nothing".

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Since CMx1's ballistics and vehicle modeling were abstracted, things like silhouettes were a necessary artificial ingredient to getting realistic end results. CMx2 doesn't need such things as that because the ballistics and vehicle modeling are pretty much 1:1 (minor exceptions here and there).

Remember that in CMx1 there was no flight path calculated for the shooter. And for the target the code only knew of the vehicle's location, relative angle to the incoming round, and facing. It did not have any ties to the 3D model in the game. In CMx2 the flight path of the round is simulated directly in the 3D environment as is the target vehicle. Therefore...

If a target vehicle is large there is a greater chance of the incoming round intersecting it. If the target is small, there is a lower chance of the incoming round intersecting it. It's all taken care of quite naturally and therefore the CMx1 concept of silhouettes isn't useful. We get far more fidelity and realism in CMx2 without it than CMx1 could ever dream of having.

Spotting, however, is done differently. Vehicle size is taken into consideration when determining if something is spotted. Other factors, such as weather, range, cover, etc. are of course factored in.

Steve

[YankeeDog]

I'm certainly not privy to the details, but my understanding is that yes, the new CMx2 modeling is much more detailed than CMx1 in that actually calculates the entire ballistic path of a round, and pinpoints if and specifically where (and at what angle, velocity, etc.) the trajectory intersects with a target. So the exact vehicle orientation, exposure and silhouette matters. There is no abstract "silhouette number", or anything like that used to calculate hit chance.

I don't know exactly how this works under the hood, but I assume the game somehow decides the "ideal" target for the weapon (i.e, where the gunner intended to round to go), and then factors in some amount of random deviation from the ideal ballistic path based on factors like gun accuracy, gunner error, etc.

My understanding is that factors like intervening terrain are also calculated based on the actual ballistic path -- if the round runs into a berm on the way to the target, then it's stopped. There are a few oddities that crop up here and there ("invincible trees" that can stop multiple 120mm rounds, for one. I haven't seen this one in a while, though, so maybe it's been fixed). But by and large the ballistics modeling in CMx2 seems to work very well.

As noted, the subtleties of all of this may be not be so easily noticed in CMSF because modern tank guns are generally very accurate, so you get a first round hit pretty often, regardless. But in CMBN, where overall first-hit percentage is significantly lower, stuff like this may be a lot more noticeable. Hopefully, a hull-down StgIII will be realistically difficult to hit, and a fully exposed Sherman will effectively have a bulls-eye painted on it...

Cheers,

YD

[EDIT: Well, if I'm going to be ninja'd, at least it's by the voice of authority...]

[Rayak47]

Sounds great, can't wait to go sneaking around with a hetzer in some future mod!

[flammenwerfer]

Spotting, however, is done differently. Vehicle size is taken into consideration when determining if something is spotted. Other factors, such as weather, range, cover, etc. are of course factored in.

Steve

I'm wondering if misidentification of vehicles made it in for the first release?

thanks

[Krilly]

Great!

I love the Stugs for some silly reason, and this makes them more viable ingame than they were in the CMx1 series.

And yeah, sounds like Hetzers could get evil if they come to play in at a later pack.

[Michael Emrys]

The Sherman tank has a relatively high profile compared to most German designs, which should make it significantly easier to hit in some situations...

A small point that you are probably aware of but others may not: The Panther was actually a few inches taller than the Sherman. People make a lot of how tall the Sherman was but never seem to get around to mentioning the Panther.

Of course the Panther had other advantages like a better gun and better armor, but the Sherman had its own advantages, the chief of which was that there were lots more of them.

Michael

[YankeeDog]

A small point that you are probably aware of but others may not: The Panther was actually a few inches taller than the Sherman. People make a lot of how tall the Sherman was but never seem to get around to mentioning the Panther.

Of course the Panther had other advantages like a better gun and better armor, but the Sherman had its own advantages, the chief of which was that there were lots more of them.

Michael

Well, yes. But the Panther is overall a significantly bigger tank than a Sherman. It's wider, taller, and heavier. If you're trying to say that bigger tanks are easier to hit than smaller tanks you'll get no argument from me...

Shermans are actually taller than they are wide. the Width/Height ratio of a Sherman is about 1.05. A Panther's is about .91. To put it another way, for its size, the Sherman's high height/width ratio makes it easier to hit. So it loses some of the advantage it might otherwise have due to smaller size, because of a less ideal hull shape.

The comparison becomes even more advantageous to the Panther if you look at the frontal silhouettes of the upper half of the hull and turret -- both the upper hull and turret of a Panther slope inwards from the sides. The Sherman's do not. So the frontal exposure of a Panther is more concentrated in the lower hull, and a Panther in a hull down situation may actually present a smaller silhouette than a Sherman, even though it's a much larger and heavier tank.

Cheers,

YD

[c3k]

A detail often overlooked when discussing battle optics between Germans and Allies was the type of reticle used and how gun-laying procedures and the reticle interacted.

NONE of this has anything to do with coatings, optical clarity, monocular vs. binocular sights, or anything else. This is purely to do with how the gunner actually aims the gun.

First, the simple type, as used by the Allies. It is just like an unadjustable scope mounted on a rifle. It would be calibrated at a known range and then locked in, if time allowed. Hopefully, the zero stayed. The reticle had a simple ladder to allow the gunner to compensate for range. If the target was near the zero range, all was dandy: put the crosshairs on it and fire. However, if the target was at a longer range, it got very difficult. The gunner had to guesstimate the range. Then he had to elevate the gun to compensate. THIS IS WHERE THE DIFFERENCE IS REALLY IMPORTANT: the reticle was fixed in the sight and the sight was fixed coaxially to the gun. So the gunner had to raise the gun until the reticle ladder with range "rungs" overlaid the target. If the shot ended up short, he had to guesstimate the amount of short and re-adjust. This should be very familiar to anyone who has fired a scoped rifle without adjusting the reticle. It's called "hold over".

The Germans used a reticle which moved INSIDE the sight. If a target was beyond the zero range, the gunner could use the accurately sized stadia triangles in the reticle and MOVE the reticle. Say, he thought the range was 800m. The reticle would sink below the target. Then he would elevate the gun until the reticle met the target: now the gun was elevated to fire at 800 meters. If the first shot were short, ALL HE HAD TO DO WAS MOVE THE RETICLE TO THE IMPACT POINT! Now the reticle and the gun were ranged to within 10's of meters of the target. Adjusting the reticle to the target would lead to a 2nd round hit. This is similar to benchrest firing a rifle with an adjustable reticle: if your shot is one inch short, based on the range and the MOA adjustments, you add the clicks and get the next shot in the bull.

These are VERY different approaches to targeting and engaging targets. One relies HUGELY on range estimation and "Kentucky windage". The other has a system built into the weapon to adjust for long range shooting.

The difference is a rifle with a fixed reticle and one with an adjustable reticle - with a stadia built into the sight to estimate the range.

This is a big advantage.

Thoughts?

Ken

[YankeeDog]

Again, I think an adjustable reticle this is something that might play a role when you're talking about a Jagdpanther sniping at T-34s across 2km of open steppe, but probably didn't play much of a role in Normandy. And in in any event, a difficult effect to actually measure in-game because the German advantage in actual gun ballistics will have a far larger effect than any gunsight advantage.

EDIT: to add: Where I would expect a gunsight technology like binocular sights and adjustable reticles to give a more noticeable advantage is against targets with a very small vertical exposure, like a dug-in AT gun, hull-down turretless AFV (like a Stug), or infantry that has "gone to ground". Against a tank, as long as the gunner has at least the full turret to aim at, and he aims for the center of silhouette, being slightly off on range is just going to mean the round is 1-3 feet high or low, and he'll still hit the target.

But the vertical exposure of a dug-in AT gun is typically less then two feet. And against a target like this, even even a small error in elevation will result in the round landing considerably short or long.

[Waycool]

I agree the quality of German optics sound to be a very minor advantage when compared to the mv and penetration capabilities of the main gun. Unless we are discussing truly long range shots which are not the norm for most Western Allied combat this should not be an issue. I have faith in BF fairness data is data and by 1944 the advantage of optics is not a deciding factor in combat. The penetration of a Panther's 75mm was the edge versus the Sherman.

[c3k]

Just crunching some quick numbers with a ballistics calculator. This is WAY different than the ballistics of a 75 to 90mm shell, so take it all with a grain of salt.

Given a muzzle velocity of 3000 fps and a zero of 300 yards, at 800 yards you'll be hitting 12' below the target. Extrapolate 12' under a target and you'll get many dozens of yards short. And that assumes you estimated the range correctly.

I think, obviously, that the sighting technique makes a huge distance at anything beyond 300 meters (which is what I understand both sides set as a battle sight range - Germans may have used 500 meters...). So, you don't need to imagine a 2km shot, merely something like, say, on the scale of the ranges during Operation Goodwood or anything beyond the bocage or village streets.

Ken

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I too don't think this technological gadget gap amounted to all that much.

The flatter trajectory of German tank guns did more to help aim along then any Zeiss thingamajig. And again, in most typical combat ranges even that should not be too big an a factor.

If there is a particular German advantage (other then penetration and armour) I reckon it should in camouflage. I do love the look of a StuG outfitted with more foliage then your average national park. That alone deserves a slight modifier to being spotted.

[shauny1987]

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

Gunner: I spotted a Nvidia glitch on the hatch, firing away!

Sorry. Had to.

[YankeeDog]

But not one is going to estimate that target at 800 yards is actually at 300 yards. No one short of a drunk, cross-eyed gunner is going to be that far off.

A better way to look at it is to try to come up with some sort of SWAG for how close your typical gunner's range estimate is, and then extrapolate this into how high or low the shot is likely to be. That is, for a target at 1000m, your typical gunner will estimate the range within X meter (50? 100?). Being extremely conservative, I would think even green gunners right out of gunners school would get the range estimate to within 200m on a sub-1000m shot. 20% error is pretty huge...

Then, since we're dealing with the question of an adjustable reticle, which doesn't really come into play until after the first shot, you have the follow up question of how close he'll estimate the actual range on the second shot, if he misses the first. This is totally a SWAG, but I would guess that even with the less refined, Allied "Kentucky Windage" adjustment (actually it's "Kentucky Ranging," I guess) , for a sub-1000m shot, the Gunner will get his range estimate to within 50m of the actual on the second shot. If he's not more than 200m off his estimate on the first shot, and once he sees where the first round goes, he should Be able to refine his aim considerably second attempt. Probably most gunners would just adjust the range up or down by 100m, as appropriate, and assume this would put them "close enough for horseshoes and hand grenades."

Beyond 1000m, it starts to get more complex, as there is a greater chance that the first chance will be way off, and even observing the range error may be difficult. Here, I think the adjustable reticle become more of an advantage.

[c3k]

There has been all sorts of studies done on the human factors. Suffice it to say that the ability of a trained gunner to accurately estimate range is very poor. The German stadia (I need to find a picture) uses triangles which are of specific MOA. Knowing the dimensions of the enemy tank allowed the gunner to MEASURE the range - not anywhere near as accurately as a binocular rangerfinder, but FAR more accurately than possible with the U.S. style.

As to how much you'd miss, well, if the battle sight were set to 500 meters, the arc above LOS prior to 500 meters would be about 20" high near 250 meters. (Rough numbers.) So, if your target was a hull down tank with a 3' high turret, your 500 meter battle range sight would send your shells skimming over his roof. A miss every time.

Again, the ability to accurately gauge your first miss is critical. The typical ladder range scale in a fixed reticle does not help.

I'm off to find some images....

Edited to add a link. Go here http://pedg.yuku.com/topic/1728/t/Ranging-Turmzielfernrohr-TZF-9b-gun-sight-optics.html for an excellent tutorial on the Strich and ensure you scroll down and watch how adjusting the range estimate moves the reticle (two settings on the adjustment, one for 88mm the other for machinegun).

Ken

[finalcut]

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

Thought someone would find it funny.

[Taki]

@Ck3: True. I worked for Zeiss here in Germany. But i wont argue. Wont waste my Time and Energy. Game is done and there are some things in the World you just cant change.

Hope it gets a good one. If so i will buy it. If not i wont.

[Battlefront.com]

As I said, we had a MASSIVE and prolonged debate about the real effects of German superior optics. Lots and lots of research was done by a great many people, including some who have published works to their names. And the conclusion was that there wasn't much of a difference between 1944/45 Western Allied and 1944/45 German optics in terms of their effects. One former employee of Zeiss, who has presented no data what-so-ever, is certainly not going to change our minds. God help us all if thats all it took to get us to change something in the game

As has been stated over and over again, there is a big difference between theoretical benefits vs. actual benefits. Slow turret rates, for example, aren't an issue if you basically are pointed in the direction of your target to start with. Thicker frontal armor only really matters if you're hit from the front. Etc. These things MATTER when someone says "the Tiger's turret turn speed crippled it's fighting ability" or "the Panther had the best armor of any Medium tank of the war". Specifics matter.

So were there specific situations in which a German tank could hit something which a US tank could have hit if it had the German optics in place? Perhaps. But I've not seen any evidence to suggest that those circumstances affected the average outcome in any significant way. I say this not because I'm biased towards the US, but because I'm not biased towards Germans. I used to believe the German superior optics myth just like probably everybody else. Partly because it was true of earlier comparisons and was true on the Eastern Front (where Soviet weaponry probably didn't live up to its full potential).

There's plenty of combat reports of German tanks getting engaged, successfully, by Allied tanks with guns capable of engaging at extended ranges. The battle for Kommerscheidt and Schmidt come to mind where US M-10s knocked out advancing PzIVs in excess of 3000m IIRC. I doubt those gunners were members of an elite class of tankers, therefore I have to question how problematic the US targeting systems were in real life for average gunners.

Steve

[MikeyD]

This reminded me of a U.S. combat account from Jentz's Panther book:

...just north of Wurselen Germany, our column... ...began to draw fire from German tanks. At once we locate two Mark V tanks at about 2800 to 3000 yards away. At once our tank destroyers and tanks opened fire on them The gunners had the eye to hit them but our guns didn't have the power to knock them out.

So U.S. TDs were getting solid hits on Panthers from 3000 yards. That doesn't sound like crappy gunsights to me. And the tanks were trading a considerable amount of gunfire which implies the Panthers weren't exactly the one shot killers of legend, either.

[c3k]

Flogging the hide of the dead beast one final time...

This is not about OPTICS, it's about SIGHTS and their relative effectiveness at getting hits beyond approximately 500 yards. Especially first-round hits.

Here's another example: if two rifles only have iron SIGHTS, their OPTICS are exactly equivalent. There is no magnification, no coatings, no doping the glass, no better off-axis viewing, etc. The optics are the user's eyeball.

One sight style used for hundreds of years, right to the present day, is a bead welded/affixed to the end of the barrel. That kind of sight has NO effect on a rifle's accuracy. (Yes, they are used on some rifled firearms.) The rifle is as accurate as it is no matter what type of sight is used. As well, the OPTICS are as good as they user's eyesight. However, it is VERY difficult for most users to achieve the rifle's potential due to the difficulty of using the SIGHT. (It's been relegated, mostly, to shotguns: close range, dispersing shot pattern make up for its weakness in getting rounds on target.)

Now, let's look at the SAME rifle, but with different sights. Say, the style on an M1 Garand for familiarity's sake. The OPTICS are the same, the rifle's ballistics haven't changed, but the ability to use the SIGHTS to accurately, rapidly, and consistently put rounds on target (or correct spotted misses) is dramatically different.

It's not OPTICS, it's SIGHTS that make a difference.

Of course, all this is moot since there is no hard data. It's a "fuzzy" topic since we can't rely on non-anecdotal evidence. You cannot scientifically prove that a Tzf 5, 9, or 12 is easier to sight with. On paper, many things seem one way but in actual use they don't quite live up to expectations. This is one of them. The human is IN the sighting loop: you can't create or use data that does not rely on human factors when discussing the UTILITY of a particular sight. (A bead is just as accurate as an aperture sight - seriously.) Human factors are a "fuzzy" subject.

All this is for distances beyond 300m. Shorter than that with a good zero it's pretty much find the target and put the crosshairs on it with your magnified sight. Beyond that, the sighting systems and operating procedures make a difference.

I own many of Jentz' books, and am familiar with the anecdote quoted. Is this anecdote (or historical recollection) to be given more weight than years of evidence? What drove off the Panthers? Was it HITS, or was it being FIRED UPON - which meant that they'd been spotted and it was only a matter of time before the jabos or artillery came down?

The M10's at K&S: I hadn't heard the range in excess of 3,000 meters. On which day of that multi-day battle did that occur? Another anecdote? Regardless of the weight you give that particular story, how long had the M10's been there? How many times had they fired upon the road the PzIV's were using? In other words, these were not 3-5 round hits. I'm willing to bet, regardless of the actual range (not 3,000 meters - at that range the AP rounds would have low penetration, so HE?) the M10's had been firing at that spot for many rounds and so had, through trial and error, corrected for range.

Do these two anecdotes, remembered because they are so far beyond the bell-curve of normal ops, outweigh all the anecdotes of German tanks hitting allied tanks before the allied tanks could return effective fire? Was it due to weaker gunpowder in the allied shells? Of course not. What then accounted for all of this accumulated evidence? (I'm including both fronts: it wasn't all due to Germans on the defense in '44.)

This does not put me in the uber-German-cats camp - I hope. I merely want to raise the fact that issues beyond glass properties are far more important in how accurately tanks can put rounds on target.

Thanks for listening. Happy New Year!

Ken

[Battlefront.com]

c3k,

Remember that anecdotes are pretty much all that either side of this argument have to go by. I don't know of any comprehensive study of battlefield results that have ranges, numbers of shots fired, types of terrain fired from, and what not noted for both sides. Anything other than that is just anecdotes.

All this is for distances beyond 300m. Shorter than that with a good zero it's pretty much find the target and put the crosshairs on it with your magnified sight. Beyond that, the sighting systems and operating procedures make a difference.

Correction... might make a difference. You could put an Abrams fire control system on a Sherman 75 and I doubt you'd get much better performance out of it than the original system. Which is why I keep harping on the concept that if the fire control system and the gun are a good match for each others' capabilities, then it doesn't matter how good the fire control system is compared to some other tank's fire control system.

This does not put me in the uber-German-cats camp - I hope. I merely want to raise the fact that issues beyond glass properties are far more important in how accurately tanks can put rounds on target.

Exactly. Which is what I've been saying from the very start. Despite apparent paper advantages of German gunnery systems, battlefield results don't seem to support that the Germans had a specific edge gained as a result of any one sub system. They certainly did have an advantage at greater ranges, but we've already covered that ground already. And it is probably true that the German sights were partly the reason for that.

But as I keep saying, and others are chiming in on, the German guns probably required the better sights in order to hit. The strength of any complex system is only as good as its weakest component. Which is why the Soviet armored vehicles look so much better on paper than they do in real engagements. They have so many weak points that their theoretical capabilities are often significantly reduced.

Steve

[c3k]

What? Mentioning SOVIET tanks? Is that a secret, end of year, BONE?

All in good humor. I appreciate you taking time to read and comment on these issues: repeatedly. I'm sure it gets tiring from your perspective. Of course, our perspective is different! Every drib and drab of information is eagerly sought after. (And gnawed upon, then questioned.)

As to the points in this thread, as I mentioned, I've already beaten my last upon this expired equine. I consider my points expressed and not in need of repeating. As I do the other points here.

Happy New Year!

Ken

[Battlefront.com]

I'm more than happy to read posts by someone who is trying to do more than "Germans had superior optics because I read that in an ASL rulebook, so make it happen or else I'll pout" It's just we've already had a HUGE debate about this and I'm quite satisfied with the results of it. Especially because that debate changed my mind. I was firmly in the "German optics are über" camp before the discussion.

Steve