GreenAsJade Posted December 31, 2010 Share Posted December 31, 2010 I don't mind what happens with "optics" in CMBN: Steve's description of the gun being the determining factor at that range works for me (I"m no grog). I'm curious about c3k's long post though. I though the who discusison is about the optics that are in the gun sights. So how can we be talking about "sights, not optics"? I had always thought that referring to "optics" in this way was another way of referring to "the sights" ... the optics that are in the sights being the main factor determining how good they are? GaJ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 GaJ, That may be my fault, adding a discriminator between OPTICS and SIGHTS. By SIGHTS I mean to remove any discussion about the properties of light being manipulated to bring a target into closer view. Hence, to me, OPTICS is all about the quality of the image brought to the eye. There has been a LOT of historical perspective about the fine quality of German optics, mainly the mirrors, prisms, and glass used in the manufacture of the gun sighting systems. My talk about SIGHTS meant to discuss the difference between the reticles, graticles, stadia, operating procedures due to those, and other elements inherent in the SIGHT, not the OPTIC. For example, one rifle equipped with either of two identical scope tubes, each with 3x magnification can have identical optical properties. Yet, tube A could have simple red dot reticle (2 moa ), while tube B has a crosshair with a ballistically compensated range ladder. Tube A would be very well adapted for (relatively) short range point and shoot. Tube B would be much better at ranges when bullet drop makes a difference on target impact. The ballistics of the weapon haven't changed. The optical properties of the sighting system haven't changed. The SIGHT has changed. I only offer the above to explain my differentiation of OPTICS and SIGHTS. Steve has responded. I consider the issue of German sights vs. Allied sights in the current version of CM:BN to be closed. Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenAsJade Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 Roger. GaJ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 I actually think c3k's point was entirely relevant to the overall discussion. Which is... should the Germans have some sort of equipment advantage, relative to the US, included in CM:BN. Optics are separate from other "fire control" systems. Sights are just one of many subtle things. Some turrets, for example, had finer sensitivity of traverse than others. As targets get further and further out the degree of control over where the gun physically points becomes more and more important. It's a very, very complex topic and there are certainly cases to be made that this or that vehicle should be less or more capable of doing this or that compared to a specific other vehicle. But the logic mentioned several times now that, for the most part, the gun's capabilities were fairly matched with a fire control system that probably did it justice. There are exceptions to this, of course. The problem with complex systems like gunnery is if you take one variable and isolate it you often unbalance other systems which aren't simulated explicitly. If that happens then the overall level of realism drops. Especially given we pretty much only have incomplete, often contradictory, anecdotal information to draw from. This is a place where abstraction tends to produce better results than explicit simulation. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 It is true that early 'narrow mantlet' Sherman was at a severe disadvantage re optics versus German tanks. That type Sherman had a roof-mounted periscope sight with linkages to the gun that easily went out of adjustment. That combined with parallax problems with the offest sight made for some sloppy gunnery. There was a similar problem with early Greyhounds - the gunner's optics were placed literally too close to the gun assembly! Big-headed gunners had difficulty positioning their heads to get a straight view down the sight. The Greyhound sight was soon moved outboard a few inches and the Sherman got its primary coaxial gunner's sight. While American sights were improving German sights were declining. The stereo gunner's sights on the Tiger and Panther were abandoned for monocular sights due to difficulty training gunners who could see properly in stereo. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoex Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 MikeyD, Please explain how it is difficult to train a human being to see in stereo. I thought we all did that automatically thanks to our anatomy, us having two eyes and all that. I'm sure what you're saying is true, but if you wouldn't mind explaining it in words that a non-grog can understand, I'd be grateful...for instance, what exactly is a stereo sight? I would have thought it was like binoculars (you look through it with both eyes, and see one picture), but probably that's where at least a part of the misunderstanding is coming from... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 There's a difference between seeing in stereo and basing range decisions on manipulation of sights. A crude example would be to take a telescope vs. binoculars. Put one eye to the telescope, close the other, adjust focus. Done. With binoculars you have to do a bit more work because only a tiny percentage of Humans have equal vision in both eyes. So now what you have to do is put both eyes to the binoculars, set the focus for one eye, then adjust the focus for the other eye. This can be a real PITA when things are moving around and you have difficulty enough getting the first eye in focus. Now, having never used monocular or binocular sighting devices to aim a weapon, the above is simply an extrapolation from things I am familiar with. Adding aiming and range finding on top of focusing might not be a big deal, but generally speaking the more things a gunner has to fiddle with the more training and experience is necessary to get the same results as a more simplistic system that needs less training. A crude comparison is what happened to German MG gunners when the MG42 was introduced. Same basic weapon as the MG34 and it utilized the standard behavior of "aim and then squeeze trigger to shoot". But with the higher rate of fire came the issue of needing better fire discipline, which meant the need for better training. As training declined so did fire discipline, which in turn meant a lot of ammo chewed up with little extra effect. And that is why, ladies and gentlemen, the MG3 doesn't have the same high rate of fire as the MG42 (even with the lighter bolt IIRC). Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Some turrets, for example, had finer sensitivity of traverse than others. Will there be turret traverse sounds? Or is it a Hollywood-generated misconception that the sound of whatever traversed a tank's turret (electrical motor? something else?) would be audible over the noise of the tank's engine (except perhaps to the guys inside the turret)? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Will there be turret traverse sounds? Or is it a Hollywood-generated misconception that the sound of whatever traversed a tank's turret (electrical motor? something else?) would be audible over the noise of the tank's engine (except perhaps to the guys inside the turret)? Well the guys inside the turret have very limited ability to hear it (regardless of it being electric, hydraulic or mechanical) as they tend to have headsets on. Perhaps if the vehicle was static and its engine off to aid concealment and the crewman had one ear piece off (one ear for the radio, one for outside noise) then you might hear it, but again often the powered traverse needed the engine running to get the "power'. But unless you are at view level 1 or 2 and right next to the vehicle I wouldn't expect to hear anything. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 @ stoex, You might find this page somewhat informative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereoscopic_rangefinder#Stereoscopic_rangefinders Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoex Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Thanks for the link, Michael! Might have gone to the trouble of checking Wikipedia myself when you get right down to it. Would have been more difficult, though, as I wasn't entirely sure what you were talking about. Makes perfect sense now, of course. And I also understand the difficulty of training gunners to use the apparatus - a little like those 3D-books that were around some years ago, where you had to look 'through' the page to see the hidden image. I know a lot of people who could never manage to do that... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 About Germans abandoned their stereo sights. Take me for example. I could never get those stereo picture viewers to work properly, 3-D movies suck for me, and when you perform the 'pencil test' my eyes will not cross as you bring the pencil closer. Add to that I'm left handed and dominant left-eyed. In other words I would've really stunk as a Panther tank gunner! And apparently the German army was running into more gunner trainees like me than they would've liked. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.